The Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as
a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. And that includes perception of the risks of "Cold War"
turning into hot. Jingoism of the current US elite is really crazy:
‘Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,’ says ex-CIA chief
backing Clinton. And this is not some drunk schmuck in the pub. This is a
top CIA official, who twice served as the acting director of the agency
In an interview with Charlie Rose in August 2016,
Morell blamed Syrian President Assad, Russia, and Iran for the death toll in Syria.[28]
He called on the moderate opposition in Syria to make Russia and Iran "pay a price" for their involvement in Syria, in part by targeting
their military personnel in the country.[29]
He also called on the US to begin bombing Syrian government targets in order to bring Assad to the negotiating table.[30]
Regarding President Bashar al-Assad, Morell argued
"I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad."[29]
You would think that this guys is a crazy psychopath (thanks God he retired form CIA in 2013). But his views reflect the views of
a large swat of Washington political establishment. And President Trump actually fulfilled Hillary bidding and attacked Assad's military
installations, the action which Morell argued for. Which opened a new chapter in Cold War II history.
Key events of Cold War II
Generally we can think about Cold War II as consisting of several phases, signified by particular events:
Phase I
Prehistory (1991-1999). The USA, especially
Bill Clinton administration,
wanted to weaken, isolate and subdue Russia since the dissolution of the USSR (using corrupt regime of drunk Yeltsin as a puppet
and Harvard mafia as economic advisors; Russian neoliberals who came to
power in Russia after the dissolution of the USSR allowed fox to guard the chickens and faced consequences ) and encouraged
efforts to dismember it (via support of Chechen radicals and islamists, in general).
2000: Putin ascendance to power as a reaction to Yeltsin regime failings and neo-colonization of Russia.Kursk submarile disaster CBS news then broke the story that
the United States had three ships in the vicinity observing the naval exercise that Kursk was taking part in. Two of the three
ships were submarines, later determined to be USS Memphis and USS Toledo, type 688 Los Angeles class fast attack submarines which
are often used for covert intelligence gathering.
USS Memphis, reported by Norway to be undergoing repairs
at a Norwegian naval yard.
2001: Neocons get full power in Bush II administration and started to implement
PNAC agenda. September 11, 2001 events. Invasion
of Afghanistan with Russian support (via North Alliance) with large supplies of Russian arms.
2003: Colin Powell lies
to UN in his speech about Iraq weapons of mass destruction(full
text) falsely accusing Iraq regime of producing chemical weapons. Subsequent invasion of Iraq under false evidence and
occupation of Iraq. The USA uses events in Afghanistan to establish military bases in former Soviet republics starting the operation
of "encirclement" of Russia. For some period of time Russia allowed transport of military cargo via its territory. this stopped
only after "NATO sanctions" were introduced in 2014.
2008: In august 2008 Georgia staged invasion of north Ossetia which resulted in Russian military operation against Georgia
(called the war with Georgia). This was the first time Russia opposed US sanctioned actions of US allies. And did it militarily.
2011: "We say, we came, he died". The USA fooled Russian President Medvedev into supporting "no-fly zones" which were interpreted
by West as the cart blanche for full scale bombing of Gaddafiregime. American and British naval forces fired
over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[20]
the French Air Force, British
Royal Air Force, and
Royal Canadian Air Force[21]
undertaking sorties across Libya and a
naval blockade by Coalition forces. French jets launched
air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles. The Libyan government response to the campaign was totally ineffectual. Regime
soon fell and Gaddafi was brutally murdered.
2016: US deploy offensive and dangerous to Russian strategic forces "missile shield" in Poland and Romania, continuing
the policy of encirclement of Russia. On May 12, 2016
US missile shield
in Romania goes live to Russian fury
2016: Anti-Russian hysteria during and after Presidential elections. Democtatic Pary turns into the second War party in
Washington and the level of jingoism and anti-Russian hysteria reached unprecedented
level.
2017: As a reaction to Hillary loss in 2016 election fierce Neo-Mccratyism
campaign against Russia was launched, with the level of demonization of Russia justifiable only if the USA is reading population
for a war. The Congress starts the investigation of Russian meddling into the US Presidential Elections.
April 2017: Hopes about Trump more reasonable approach to foreign policy and detente with Russia vanished. Under relentless
attacks of neocons, which actually resemble a color revolution" (called
Purple revolution) Trump folded. Attack
on Syrian airbase followed, which actually signify direct attack on Russian involvement (and policy) in Syria. It was masked as
a reaction on
Khan Sheikhoun gas attack (which, most probably, was a false flag operation)
Sanction as official start of Cold War II
What is called "sanctions" is essentially the "official" start of Cold War II. Not everybody understand this. Russians tend
to obscure this fact with bravado. "Sanctions is not only a challenge, but also can serve as a useful resource for our country economic
development" -- said the first deputy head of the Presidential Administration Vyacheslav Volodin, in his address to the seminar
meeting with officials of the government of subjects of the Russian Federation and representatives of the Public Chamber of the Russian
Federation which took place Dec 1-3.
"Today, the state conducts an internal policy that really reflects the interests and enjoys the support of the absolute majority
of the Russian people. For example, the reunification of the Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia has supported more than 93% of Russian
citizens" noted Vyacheslav Volodin. "But the highest level of support for government policy - not a reason to calm down and relax.
This is the issue of preversing this huge level of credibility, great expectations of people. It is important to use this social
energy for development of the country, addressing major social and economic problems. "
"The current economic situation is today is an inflected on us stress test for the government, for the economy, for the country as
a whole," - said Vyacheslav Volodin.
"This is an opportunity to see who is who. World leaders of the 20th century took place at different times this path - the
path of development in the face of opposition of the environment, trade wars, sanctions and restrictions. Some of the countries,
such as China, have been able, in spite of the sanctions regime, to build one of the strongest economies in the world and dramatically
improve the quality of life of its citizens. Such an opportunity does exist for us too. "
According to Vyacheslav Volodin, economic recovery should be a continuing priority for the country. Sanctions - this is an additional
opportunity to resolve overdue to restructure the domestic market, provided support for domestic manufactures.
"Import substitution and new industrialization, which we discussed back in the pre-election articles and messages of the President
of the Russian Federation in 2012 and 2013 - a key aspect of state sovereignty,"
I would recommend Volodin to listen famous Russian song, almost a hymn of Russian navy
Varyag. Russia now faces the whole NATO alliance,
which is by oprder or magnitute is more powerful economically.
Putin assessed situation in more sober way (From 28 min Putin discuss sanctions),
but still I think underestimated the capabilities of the "collective West" led by the USA to wreck Russian economy. And while Biden
is a regular neocon chickenhawk (essentially Hillary in pants), behind him like an aircraft carriers stand 500 largest US companies
and the whole US military industrial complex which wants war:
The U.S. and the European Union imposed sanctions on people and companies close to President
Vladimir Putin after Russia annexed the Black Sea Crimea
peninsula in March. Ukraine has accused Russia of supplying weapons, military vehicles and mercenaries to separatists, which Russia
denies. The two nations are also in conflict over gas, with Russia cutting off supplies this week because of unpaid bills.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Putin's government faces
the threat of further economic sanctions if it doesn’t do more “to exercise its influence among the separatists to lay down their
weapons and renounce violence, both of which Russia has thus far failed to do,” according to a statement released by the White House
yesterday.
And it is not accidental that the World Bank, one of the cornerstones of world neoliberal economic order, has designed
two scenarios for the growth of the Russian economy in 2014 taking into account increased risks over the Crimean crisis (MOSCOW, March
26 (RIA Novosti)
The first variant is based on short-term influences of the events in Ukraine on Russia's economy, and the second, threats of a serious
shock and downturn of the gross domestic product (GDP).
"The scenario with a low level of risk presupposes that actions over the Crimean crisis will be limited and short-term and with
a prognosis of a slowing economic growth to 1.1 percent in 2014 and a slight increase to 1.3 percent in 2015,"
according to a World Bank report on the Russian economy published on Wednesday.
Q: What do you think about the "war of sanctions" that Russia waged against the West?
Philippe de Villiers: I will answer you as a person, seriously studied history. It was not even a single case where sanctions
would lead to the desired result. Moreover, they give the opposite result.
Country against which an embargo is introduced, usually finds the hidden reserves and becomes stronger. Sanctions by themselves
- it is an act of war, they hurt the pride of the people, and those mobilized, concentrated, what is happening now in Russia.
In French, one of the meanings of the word "sanctions" refers to a school dictionary. Teacher allowed to punish the student to
apply to it "sanctions."But as far as I know, Mr. Putin is not a disciple of Mr Barroso. Sanctions lead to retaliatory
sanctions to a dangerous chain of mutual blows.
Cooperation between countries - it is an act of peace. Our joint project of theme parks in Russia and indeed this is. Support
him, President Putin has committed an act of peace. I appeal to all the French entrepreneurs to follow suit in order to strengthen
ties and friendship between France and Russia.
The Colder War Has Begun… and Russia Is Winning!
Eye-opening new book reveals that Vladimir Putin has launched an ingenious yet devastating plan to strip America of its superpower
status. And he’s not using bombs or tanks to do it!
Free Book - The Colder War
Instead, he’s grabbing control of the global energy trade—the largest source of demand for the dollar and the bedrock of American
might and prosperity.
Should Putin win, he could nuke the US economy and cost the average American dearly.
That’s why I want to send you a FREE copy of this book to help you prepare for this epic struggle that will define this decade and
the century to come.
“ The Colder War provides a reversing contrast from the hysterical "Putin is Stalin, Jr., let's restart the Cold War" message emanating
from the neocon think tanks and the mainstream media. Marin Katusa shows the real threat to the American people... "
Ron Paul
Dr. Ron Paul
former US Congressman, founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Dear Reader,
Putin has transformed Russia from a sickly former Soviet state into an energy powerhouse to become:
The second-largest oil exporter in the world, on pace to pass Saudi Arabia very soon;
The largest uranium exporter in the world, powering 1 in 10 American homes;
The largest natural gas exporter in the world, doling out with an iron fist and willing to cut off supply and watch harsh winters
kill thousands to get its way.
While America and the West weren’t watching all this develop, Marin Katusa had a front-row seat. He’s seen Putin’s mounting influence
on the global energy trade firsthand.
And as you’ll discover in his new book, The Colder War, the US can no longer afford to ignore Putin.
“ Marin Katusa is raising some good questions about how the world's energy markets really work. He provides some good answers too.
Many readers are not going to like them. Those are the people who most need to read this book."
PS likbez@46 reminded me of a line from the movie Reds. Warren Beatty's John Reed spoke of
people who "though Karl Marx wrote a good antitrust law." This was not a favorable comment.
The confusion of socialism and what might be called populism is quite, quite old. Jack
London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War that the
normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the middle class
paradise of equal competition. It wasn't conspiracies.
likbez 07.29.20 at 3:30 pm
@steven t johnson 07.29.20 at 3:14 pm (51)
Jack London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War
that the normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the
middle class paradise of equal competition.
I think the size of the USA military budget by itself means the doom for the middle class,
even without referring to famous Jack London book (The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's
biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen
Eighty-Four.).
Wall Street and MIC (especially intelligence agencies ; Allen Dulles was a Wall Street
lawyer) are joined at the hip. And they both fully control MSM. As Jack London aptly said:
"The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist
class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it
serves it." ― Jack London, The Iron Heel
Financial capitalism is bloodthirstily by definition as it needs new markets. It fuels wars.
In a sense, Bolton is the symbol of financial capitalism foreign policy.
It is important to understand that finance capitalism creates positive feedback loop in the
economy increasing instability of the system. So bubbles are immanent feature of finance
capitalism, not some exception or the result of excessive greed.
UK 'Russia report' fear-mongers about meddling yet finds no evidence
10,974 views•25 Jul 2020
The Grayzone
111K subscribers
Pushback with Aaron Maté
A long-awaited UK government report finds no evidence of Russian meddling in British
domestic politics, including the 2016 Brexit vote. But that hasn't stopped the
fear-mongering: the report claims the UK government didn't find evidence because it didn't
look for it, and backs increased powers for intelligence agencies and media censorship as a
result. Afshin Rattansi, a British journalist and host of RT's "Going Underground",
responds.
Guest: Afshin Rattansi, British journalist and host of RT's "Going Underground."
Modern jihadism was co-invented in 1979 by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, and U.S.
National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, working together, and here is the background for
it, and the way -- and the reasons -- that it was done:
Back in the later Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church and its aristocracies had used
religious fervor in order to motivate very conservative and devout people to invade foreign
countries so as to spread their empire and to not need to rely only on taxes in order to fund
these invasions, but also to highly motivate them by their faith in a heavenly reward. It was
far cheaper this way, because these invading forces wouldn't need to be paid so much; the
reason why they'd be far cheaper is that their pay would chiefly come to them in their
afterlife (if at all). That's why people of strong faith were used. (Aristocracies always rule
by deceiving the public, and faith is the way.) Those invaders were Roman Catholic Crusaders,
and they went out on Crusades to spread their faith and so 'converted' and slaughtered millions
of Muslims and Jews, so as to expand actually the aristocracies' and preachers' empire, which
is the reason why they had been sent out on those missions (to win 'converts'). This was
charity, after all. (Today's large tax-exempt non-profits are no different -- consistently
promoting their aristocracy's invasions, out of 'humanitarian' concern for the 'welfare', or
else 'souls', of the people they are invading -- and, if need be, to kill 'bad people'. This
has been the reality. And it still is. It's the way to sell imperialism to individuals who
won't benefit from imperialism -- make mental slaves of them.)
The original Islamic version of the Christian Crusades, Islamic Holy
War or "jihad," started on 14 November 1914 in Constantinople (today's Istanbul) when the
Sheikh Hayri Bey, the supreme religious
authority in the Ottoman Empire , along with the Ottoman Emperor, Mehmed V , declared a Holy War for their Muslim
followers to take up arms against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro in World War
I. They were on Germany's side, and lost. (That's the reason why the Ottoman Empire ended.)
Both
the Sheikh and the Emperor had actually been selected -- and then forced -- by Turkey's
aristocracy, for them to declare Islamic Holy War at that time. In fact, the sitting Sheikh,
Mehmet
Cemaleddin Efendi , in 1913, was actually an opponent of the pro-German and
war-oriented policy of the Union and Progress Party, which represented Turkey's aristocrats,
and so that Sheikh was replaced by them, in order to enable a declaration of Islamic Holy War.
Jihad actually had its origin in Turkey's aristocracy -- not in the Muslim masses, and not even
in the Muslim clergy. It resulted from an overly ambitious Turkish aristocracy, hoping to
extend their empire. It did not result from the public. And, at that time, relatively few
Muslims followed this 'Holy' command, which is one reason why the Ottoman Empire soon
thereafter ended.
The fact that the decision about the Armenians was made after a great deal of thought,
based on extensive debate and discussion by the Central Committee of the CUP [Committee for
Union and Progress] , can be understood by looking at other sources of information as well.
The indictment of the Main Trial states as follows: ''The murder and annihilation of the
Armenians was a decision taken by the Central Committee of the Union and Progress Party.''
These decisions were the result of ''long and extensive discussions.'' In the indictment are
the statements of Dr. Nazım to the effect that ''it was a matter taken by the Central
Committee after thinking through all sides of the issue'' and that it was ''an attempt to reach
a final solution to the Eastern Question .'' 54 In his memoirs, which were published in
the newspaper Vakit, Celal, the governor of Aleppo, describes the same words being spoken to
him by a deputy of the Ottoman Parliament from Konya, coming as a ''greeting of a member of the
Central Committee .'' This deputy told Celal that if he had ''expressed an opinion that
opposed the point of view of the others, [he would] have been expelled .''
55
(And, consequently, when Hitler allegedly -- on 22 August 1939 , right before his
invasion of Poland which started WW II, and it is
on page 2 here , but the sincerity and even the authenticity of that alleged private
'speech' by him should be questioned and not accepted outright by historians -- cited Turkey's
genocide against Armenian Christians as being proof that genocide is acceptable, Hitler would
actually have been citing there not only a Muslim proponent of genocide, but an ally of Germany
who had actually done it, because the Ottoman Empire's aristocracy had been both Muslim and
German-allied. Hitler would, in that 'speech', if he actually said it, have been citing that
earlier ally of Germany, which had actually genocided Christians. The genocide happened, even
if that speech mentioning it was concocted by some propagandist during WW II.)
The new jihad, or Islamic version of the Crusades, is, however, very different from the one
that had started on 14 November 1914. It wasn't Turkish, it instead came straight from Turkey's
top competitor to lead the world's Muslims, the royal family who owned Saudi Arabia, the Sauds.
But they partnered with America's aristocracy, in creating it.
Today's jihadism started in 1979, when U.S. President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (a born Polish nobleman), and his colleague Prince Bandar bin
Sultan al Saud, re-created jihad or Islamic Holy War, in order to produce a dirt-cheap army of
Pakistani fundamentalist Sunni students or "mujahideen," soon to be renamed Taliban (
Pashto &
Persian ṭālibān, plural of ṭālib student, seeker, from Arabic )
so as to invade and conquer next door to the Soviet Union the newly Soviet-allied Afghanistan,
and to turn it 'pro-Western', now meaning both anti-Soviet, and anti-Shiite. (The Saud family
hate Shiites , and so do America's
aristocrats, whose CIA had conquered Shiite Iran in 1953, and who became outraged when Shiites
retook Iran in 1979. And, from then on, America's aristocracy, too, have hated Shiites and have
craved to re-conquer Iran. By contrast, the Sauds had started in 1744 to hate Shiites.) So, modern Islamic Holy War started
amongst fundamentalist Sunnis in Pakistan in 1979, against both the Soviets and the Iranians
(and now against both
Russia and Iran ). Here is a video of Brzezinski actually doing that -- starting the
"mujahideen" (subsequently to become the Taliban) onto this 'Holy War':
Brzezinski ,
incidentally, had been born a Roman Catholic Polish aristocrat whose parents hated and despised
Russians, and this hostility went back to the ancient conflicts between the Roman Catholic and the
Russian Orthodox Churches.
So: whereas on the American end this was mainly a Roman Catholic versus Orthodox operation,
it was mainly a Sunni versus Shiite operation on the Saudi end.
Here's more of the personal background regarding the co-creation, by the aristocracies of
America and of Saudi Arabia, of today's jihadism, or "radical Islamic terrorism":
Whereas Nelson Rockefeller in the Republican Party sponsored Harvard's Henry Kissinger as
the geostrategist and National Security Advisor, David Rockefeller in the Democratic Party
sponsored Harvard's and then Columbia's Zbigniew Brzezinski as the geostrategist and National
Security Advisor. The Rockefeller family was centrally involved in controlling the U.S.
Government.
According to pages 41-44 of David B. Ottaway's 2008 The
King's Messenger: Prince Bandar , U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose National Security
Advisor was Brzezinski, personally requested and received advice from a certain graduate
student at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Saudi Prince Bandar
bin Sultan al Saud, regarding geostrategy. At the time, Brzezinski commented favorably on
Bandar's graduate thesis. But that's not all. "Secretly, Carter had already turned to the
kingdom for help, calling in Bandar and asking him to deliver a message to [King] Fahd pleading
for an increase in Saudi [oil] production. Fahd's reply, according to Bandar, was 'Tell my
friend, the president of the United States of America, when they need our help, they will not
be disappointed.'13 The king was true to his world." However, Bandar's advice went beyond oil.
And the re-creation, of the fundamentalist-Sunni movement (amongst only fundamentalist Sunni
Muslims, both in 1914 and in 1979), that now is called "jihadism," was a joint idea, from both
Brzezinski and Bandar.
It was the United States that, together with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, and Pakistan, dispatched the jihadists to Afghanistan. Prince Bandar bin Sultan of
Saudi Arabiaplayed a key rolein those operations, with Saudi Arabia providing the key
financial, military and human support for them. The kingdom encouraged its citizens to go to
Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army. One such citizen was Osama bin Laden. Saudi Arabia agreed
to match, dollar for dollar, any funds that the CIA could raise for the operations. The
U.S.provided Pakistan with $3.2 billion, and Saudi Arabia bought weapons from
everywhere, including international black markets, and sent them to Afghanistan through
Pakistan's ISI.
That was then, and this is now, but it is merely an extension of that same operation, even
after the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance all ended in
1991, and Russia ended its side of the Cold War but the United States secretly continued its side , as is shown here,
by an example. This example, of America's continuing its Cold War, is America's longstanding
effort, after the death of FDR in 1945, to overthrow and replace Syria's pro-Russian Government
and install instead a Syrian Government that will be controlled by the Sauds:
So, in this new 'Islamic holy war', to overthrow Syria's non-sectarian Government, the
fighters entered Syria through Turkey, and they were welcomed mainly in Syria's province of
Idlib, which adjoins Turkey.
On 13 March 2012, the Al Jazeera TV station, of the pro-jihad Thani royal family of Qatar,
headlined "Inside
Idlib: Saving Syria" , and opened
The Syrian government crackdown on the dissenting northern city of Idlib has continued
for a third day, with casualties from random shelling and sniper fire mounting, and growing
concerns for many citizens detained by government forces. "I can't tell you what an unequal
contest this is . The phrase that we felt yesterday applied to it was 'Shooting fish in a
barrel' – these people can't escape, they can't help themselves, they have very little
weaponry, what can they do but sit there and take it?"
The UK Government had given Qatar to the Thanis in 1868. On 12
September 1868 , Mohammed Bin Thani signed "an agreement with the British Political
Resident Col. Lewis Pelly, which was considered as the first international recognition of the
sovereignty of Qatar"; so, on that precise day, Britain's Queen Victoria gave Qatar to his
family, which owns it, to the present day. The Thanis are the leading financial backers of the
Muslim Brotherhood, which spreads Thani influence to foreign countries. (At least up till 9/11,
the Saud family have been the main financial
backers of Al Qaeda .) The Thanis have been, along with the Sauds, the main financial
backers of replacing the non-sectarian Syrian Government by a fundamentalist-Sunni Syrian
Government. Whereas the Sauds want to control that new government, also the Thanis do, and this
is one reason for the recent falling-out between those two families. America's aristocracy
prefers that Syria's rulers will be selected by the Saud family, because they buy more weapons
from the U.S. than does any other country. However, everything is transactional between
aristocracies, and, so, international alliances can change. It's always a jostling, everyone
grabbing for whatever they can get: aristocracies operate no differently than crime-families
do, because FDR's dream of an anti-imperialistic U.N., which would set and enforce
international laws, died when he did; we live instead in an internationally lawless world -- he
died far too soon. In a sense (at least ideologically), Hitler won, but, actually, Churchill
did (he was as much an imperialist as Hitler and Mussolini were).
Anyway, uncounted tens of thousands of jihadists from all over the world descended upon
Syria, funded by the Sauds and the Thanis, and armed and trained by the United States, to
conquer Syria. At the Syrian Government's request,
Russia started bombing the jihadists on 30 September 2015 . That air-support for the Syrian
Army turned the war around. By the time of 4 May 2018, Britain's Financial Times
headlined "Idlib offers uncertain sanctuary
to Syria's defeated rebels" ("rebels" being the U.S. and UK Governments' term for jihadists
who were serving as the U.S., Saud and Thani, proxy-forces or mercenaries to conquer Syria) and
reported (stenographically transmitting what the CIA and MI6 told them to say) that, "more than
70,000 rebels and civilians" -- meaning jihadists and their families -- who were "fleeing the
last rebel holdout near the capital," had been given a choice, and this "choice was die in
Ghouta, or leave for Idlib," and chose to get onto the Government-supplied buses taking them to
Idlib. So, perhaps unnumbered hundreds of thousands of jihadists did that, from all over Syria,
and collecting them in Idlib.
On May 8th, Syria's Government bannered,"6th batch of terrorists leave
southern Damascus for northern Syria"and reported that "During the past five days,
218 buses carrying terrorists with their families exited from the three towns to Jarablos and
Idleb under the supervision of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent." Jarablos (or "Jarabulus")
is a town or "District" in the Aleppo Governate; and Idleb (or "Idlib") is the
capital District in the adjoining Governate of Idlib, which Governate is immediately to the
west of Aleppo Governate; and both Jarabulus and Idlib border on Turkey to the north. Those two
towns in Syria's far northwest are where captured jihadists are now being sent.
The Government is doing that because at this final stage in the 7-year-long war, it wants
civilian deaths and additional destruction of buildings to be kept to a minimum, and so is
offering jihadists the option of surviving instead of being forced to fight to the death (which
would then require Syria's Government to destroy the entire area that's occupied by the
terrorists); this way, these final clean-up operations against the terrorists won't necessarily
require bombing whole neighborhoods -- surrenders thus become likelier, so as to end the war as
soon as possible, and to keep destruction and civilian casualties at a minimum.
The Syrian and Russian Governments had planned to finish them off there in Idlib, so that
none of them could escape back into their home countries to continue their jihad. However, the
U.S. and its allies raised 'humanitarian' screams at the U.N. and other international
organizations, in order to protect the 'rebels' against the 'barbarous dictator' of Syria, its
President, Bashar al-Assad -- just in order to create more anti-Assad (and anti-Russian, and
anti-Iranian) propaganda. And, so, on 9 and 10 September 2018, Putin and Erdogan and Rouhani
met in Rouhani's Tehran to decide what to do. By that time, Erdogan was riding the fence
between Washington and Moscow. On 17 September 2018, I headlined "Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria-Idlib DMZ as I Recommended" and
reported that Putin and Rouhani entrusted Idlib to Erdogan, with the expectation that Erdogan
would keep the jihadists penned-up there, so that Putin and Assad would be able to bomb them to
hell after the 'humanitarian crisis' in Idlib would be no longer on front pages.
The role of the United Nations in this has been to stand aside and pretend that it's a
'humanitarian crisis' (as the U.S. regime wanted it to be called) instead of a U.S.-and-allied
invasion, aggressive war, and consequently a vast war-crime such as Hitler's top leaders were
prosecuted and executed for at Nuremberg. As Miri Wood wrote, at Syria News, on 28
February 2018 :
Members of the General Assembly must be in good financial standing to vote. Dues are on a
sliding scale but do not factor in draconian sanctions against targeted members, nor crimes of
war involved in their destruction. As such, CAR, Libya, Venezuela and Yemen have been stripped
of their voting rights. The non-permanent SC members function as obedient House Servants to the
P3 bullies, ever mindful of placing self-preservation above moral integrity .
So Truman's U.N. turns out to be on the side of the new Nazism, against its victims.
Erdogan wants to be with the winners. He evidently believes that whatever empire he'll be
able to have will be just a vassal nation within the U.S. Empire. He had been
extremely reluctant to accept this viewpoint , but, apparently, he now does. And so, now,
Erdogan has become so confident that he has the backing of Christian-majority America and of
Christian-majority Europe, so that Turkey's
Hagia Sophia , which had been "the world's largest cathedral
for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520," has finally become
officially declared by the Turkish Government to be, instead, a mosque. He feels safe enough to
insult the publics in the other NATO countries so as to be able now to assert publicly his
support for Islam against Christianity, because he knows that NATO's other
aristocracies -- all of them majority-Christian, and all of these aristocrats ruling their
respective Christian-majority countries -- don't really give a damn about that. Amongst
themselves, the concern for 'heaven' is all just for show, because they are far more interested
to buy Paradise in the here-and-now, for themselves and for their families. As for any possible
'afterlife', it will be reflected in the big buildings and charities that will bear their
names, after they're gone. Erdogan feels safe, knowing that they're all psychopaths. And, as
for the publics anywhere -- Syria, Libya, even in Turkey itself -- they don't matter, to him,
any more than they do to the leaders of those other NATO countries.
Turkish forces started recruiting numbers of its armed fighters to send them to
Azerbaijan in order to assist the Azerbaijani forces in confronting the Armenian army.
According to sources, Turkey opened special promotion offices in different parts of Afrin
northern Aleppo, to attract the militants and encourage them to sign contracts by which they
would move to fight in Azerbaijan for a period of six months, renewable in case they wanted
to.
According to the contract, the militants receive a monthly salary of $2500, while the
advantage of granting Turkish citizenship to the families of the militants in case they died is
absent, contrary to the contracts that Turkey had signed with the armed men who wanted to move
to Libya.
The sources said that Turkey has designated centers for registering militants wishing to
fight in Azerbaijan within the towns of Genderes and Raju, along with Afrin city, and these
centers have already started receiving requests by the militants.
Armenia is virtually 100% Christian, and, according to Wikipedia :
The Armenian Genocide[c](also known as the Armenian
Holocaust )[13]was the systematic mass
murder and expulsion of 1.5 million[b]ethnicArmenianscarried out in Turkey and adjoining regions by theOttoman governmentbetween 1914 and 1923.[14][15]The starting date is
conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested,
and deported fromConstantinople(now Istanbul) to the region of Angora (Ankara),235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders, the majority of whom
were eventually murdered.
So, the recruitment of fundamentalist-Sunni mercenaries in the areas of Syria that Turkey
has captured, and sending those men "to assist the Azerbaijani forces in confronting the
Armenian army," is likewise consistent with the NATO member-country Turkey's restoration of its
former Ottoman Empire. Using these jihadist proxy-soldiers, NATO is now invading Christian
Armenia.
However, Iskef was reporting without paying any attention to the aristocratic interests
which were actually very much involved in what Erdogan was doing here. On July 19th, Cyril
Widdershoven at the "Oil Price" site bannered
"The Forgotten Conflict That Is Threatening Energy Markets" and he reported the economic
geostrategic factors which were at stake in this now-emerging likely hot war, which is yet
another "pipeline war," and which pits Turkey against Russia. In this particular matter, Turkey
has an authentic economic reason to become engaged in a possible hot war allied with Muslim
Azerbaijan against Christian Armenia. Russia, yet again, would be backing Christian soldiers.
Of course, NATO, also yet again, would be on the Muslim side, against the Christians. But, this
time, NATO would be backing Azerbaijan, which is 85% Shiite. Consequently, in such a conflict,
the U.S. could end up on the same side as Iran, and against Russia.
If history is any guide, aristocratic interests will take precedence over theocratic
interests, but democratic interests -- the interests of the publics that are involved -- will
be entirely ignored. The sheer hypocrisy of the U.S. regime exceeds anything in human
history.
How can anybody not loathe the U.S. regime and its allies? Only by getting one's 'news' from
its 'news'-media -- especially (but not only) its mainstream ones.
Before looking into Russian options in relation to the US, we need to take a quick look at
how Russia has been faring this year. The short of it would be: not too well. The Russian
economy has shrunk by about 10% and the small businesses have been devastated by the combined
effects of 1) the economic policies of the Russian government and Central Bank, and 2) the
devastating economic impact of the COVID19 pandemic, and 3) the full-spectrum efforts of the
West, mostly by the Anglosphere, to strangle Russia economically. Politically, the "Putin
regime" is still popular, but there is a sense that it is getting stale and that most Russians
would prefer to see more dynamic and proactive policies aimed, not only to help the Russian
mega-corporations, but also to help the regular people. Many Russians definitely have a sense
that the "little guy" is being completely ignored by fat cats in power and this resentment will
probably grow until and unless Putin decides to finally get rid of all the Atlantic
Integrationists aka the "Washington consensus" types which are still well represented in the
Russian ruling circles, including the government. So far, Putin has remained faithful to his
policy of compromises and small steps, but this might change in the future as the level of
frustration in the general population is likely to only grow with time.
That is not to say that the Kremlin is not trying. Several of the recent constitutional
amendments adopted in a national vote had a strongly expressed "social" and "patriotic"
character and they absolutely horrified the "liberal" 5th columnists who tried their best two
1) call for a boycott, and 2) denounce thousands of (almost entirely) imaginary violations of
the proper voting procedures, and to 3) de-legitimize the outcome by declaring the election a
"fraud". None of that worked: the participation was high, very few actual violations were
established (and those that were, had no impact on the outcome anyway) and most Russians
accepted that this outcome was the result of the will of the people. Furthermore, Putin has
made public the Russian strategic goals for 2030
,which are heavily focused on improving the living and life conditions of average Russians (for
details, see here ). It is impossible to predict
what will happen next, but the most likely scenario is that Russia has several, shall we say,
"bumpy" years ahead, both on the domestic and on the international front.
I would add that Russia should also start opening channels of communication with various
organizations in Canada, especially those in the far north. While Canada is small
politically, it is vastly bigger than the U.S. in natural resources, very strategically
located and right next door to Russia.
I really agree with you that the "blame Russia" and "blame China" thing has gotten out of
hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems doubtful to me, as the
government is still full of people who are looking out for their own interests and know that
a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that "Russian asset" would become the
all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
I think Trump can win, though, if he successfully hangs the escalating Antifa/BLM mayhem
around the Democrat's necks. Normal, salt-of-the-earth-type Americans won't vote for the
party of Maoist mayhem. I just hope their numbers are still sufficient. So, really, the
mayhem needs to worsen and get ultra-bad, and Trump needs to carefully respond with just
enough law enforcement to bait the Democrats into defending the insurrectionists and their
tactics and loudly condemning Trump's "fascist" response. Normal people will see the true
story and in the privacy of the voting booth, not vote Democrat. And if you think the other
side lost their minds after the 2016 election .
Thanks Saker – I would have loved it, had Alaska been able to hang on to the 90s
relationship with Russia. It was a perfect match, except that Russian economy { as we were
told} was just tanking, and they had no money to throw into the tourist trade. Not that us
Alaskans, expected much more than what our bush villages had to offer. lol But , I'm afraid
this will never happen again, with the Zio freaks in charge of the US. I recall when I was
flying and living in McGrath in the 90s, that a womens Russian helicopter team dropped down
to refuel and I was workin on my cessna about 50 yrds away. I saw about 6+ really good
looking Russian chicks come out of those choppers, and us guys were floored ! We started to
communicate with them, they told us that they were re -tracing the WW II lend lease route and
were headed to the lower 48. Just about the time we started getting close tho, an old Lady
colonel jumped out and put the girls in place – lol . I also remember the Magadan
hockey team came over to play against our University teams Anchorage and Fairbanks. My
neighbor here in Kryme, was on that Russian team – small world. Ya, Russia and Alaska
would be a great match today – just gotta get rid of Washington. Thanks for the
memories.
" until and unless Putin decides to finally get rid of all the Atlantic Integrationists
aka the "Washington consensus" types which are still well represented in the Russian ruling
circles, including the government."
Putin's regime is merely a less unbearable version of the Yeltsin regime, with open loot
by oligarchs replaced by less overt loot by smaller scale actors. Putin is exactly as
beholden to the neoliberal capitalist system as Yeltsin. To expect Putin to change sides as
this point is ludicrous.
" Russia and the Empire have been at war since at least 2013, for no less than seven
years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to
ignore)."
I have no idea what a "neo" Marxist is (apart from a blatant made up term to taint us by
association with the neo-Nazis), but as a Marxist, which the Saker obviously is not, it's
obvious to me that the Imperialist States of America has been at war with Russia since the
Yeltsinite attack on the Moscow parliament in 1993, and probably from the failed patriotic
coup of 1991. If we ignore the Saker's idea of a war since 2013 it's only because we know
it's twenty years out of date.
Things will never improve between Amerikastan and Russia and don't need to. Amerikastan is
sinking and will sink; Putin will, if he continues on the neoliberal capitalist track, sink
Russia as well in the end.
The video link to Sahra Wagenknecht's report was the best part of this article although
the article itself was spot on if one has any respect for reality.
I keep waiting for Germany to tell NATO and the US to get the hell out, but their
political establishment is just as corrupt as the US's.
The amount of money the US Fed Gov steals from the population in taxes and regulation or
causes loss of purchasing power by increasing debt could be much better put to use than
shoveling it into the military to murder people around the globe. The entire Fed Gov will, I
hope, disappear like fart gas as a result of the economic collapse in the making.
@Emily at was just a brutal form of monopoly capitalism that is the essence of the
Zionist syndicate we all are up against. Today piratized not privatized Russia is suffering a
less severe form but it is estimated that half Jew Putin and his oligarch cronies control ap.
30% of the Russian economy. all of this insider theft was "codified and Legalized" by Larry
Summers and the Harvard Jews. Same thing is happening in Jewmerica and moving lots faster now
with the theft under cover of the fake virus. Don't forget in 08-09 the bailout for
billionaires cost the regular economy trillions then too. No problem, the Jews at Black Rock
picked up some great bargains as they will this time.
The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot
be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed.
I would add that Putin (a masterful statesman) tamed Russia's oligarchs. The greatest fear
of America's oligarchs might well be a similar taming by a masterful American statesman.
Hence the refusal to allow anyone other than corrupted mediocrities anywhere near nominal
power in the US. And hence the entirely genuine hatred for Putin. He embodies their worst
nightmare.
"Russia will never attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western
russophobes)"
Now that team orange clown (with the full support of congress) has done away with the
doctrine of mutually assured destruction, apparently replacing it with the concept of a
"winnable" nuclear war (impliedly by way of a devastating first strike), the time may come
when Russia may have to either strike first or be struck first.
Also, what about the case where the empire is finally successful in starting a war against
Iran, for example, and the war goes badly for the empire (i.e. Iran is inflicting some
serious damage), whereupon the empire resorts to nukes. Would Russia just sit back and watch,
or would Russia then realize that the monster has to be put down?
"The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot
be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed."
In a sense that's true as far as it goes, but it really doesn't explain very much. Lots of
countries are unable to subdue, subvert or conquer other countries but that in itself doesn't
generally lead to "hatred." The simpler and more profound explanation is that the empire does
what it does because it's evil. And the evil empire is analogous to an aggressive cancer:
either the cancer wins and the patient dies, or the cancer is completely eradicated and the
patient survives. There is no peaceful coexistence with the evil empire just like there is no
peaceful coexistence with glioblastoma. You cannot negotiate with it to find some kind of a
reasonable compromise.
The US government and FRS seem to be hell-bent on destroying the value of the US $: when
someone issues debt obligations (treasuries) and then buys them himself because there are no
other takers, you cannot help smelling a rat.
The crash of the $ will hurt everyone, but some will recover faster than others. Euro and
yen would be buried with the US $, but assets in less US-dependent countries that have real
economies producing things other than hot air will likely fare better. Which leaves Russia,
big China, South Korea, and some SE Asia countries.
the US was at about the same level in 2013: "The top 10% of families held 76% of the
wealth in 2013, while the bottom 50% of families held 1%. Inequality worsened from 1989 to
2013"
Indications are that the worsening has only continued since then, and with all the money
being poured into the stock market by the Fed this year, 2020 is on track to be exceptionally
iniquitously inequitable.
Trump 're-election' is certain. All roads are paved toward it. In fact and so far Trump is
the best Neocon/Deep State's man they found. Stop pretending Saker!
The US is under rule by decree, not by rule of law. Looking at the original list of
grievances the Colonists had against King George, it looks like most of them are met –
and then some – by our current system of government. Can we regain our
independence?
said:
"A Trump re-election will virtually guarantee civil war, but that is still a better option
than a Biden hot war against Russia. Either way though, the country is totally fucked."
– We already have a civil war.
– Either way there will be no "hot war against Russia". That's just silly.
– And there is no "Biden" there.
– The US is much, much better off with Trump, it's not even close. Especially if you
value free speech, fighting violence, and at least some semblance of a market economy devoid
of the 'Green New Deal' scam.
after Vietnam war, Vietnam, ally of China , keep their regime in their own
hand.
The ally of North Vietnam was Russia.
China blocked the transit of Russian weapons to North Vietnam. After North Vietnam
defeated the Americans, with Russian help, China invaded North Vietnam and was defeated.
For Saker it is always about Russia, Russia, Russia Sure, Russia is a big world power, it
used to be and it is now. It is so mostly because of its military, which draws its strength
and know-how from the USSR (meaning it is not strictly Russian). However, Russia will never
again be a superpower as the USSR had been. It was possible then only because of the
(historically) unparalleled appeal of the communist ideology. Firstly and objectively, Russia
does not have an economy necessary to support such a status. Secondly, Russia has no
sufficient population which, again, is a limiting factor to its economy. Putin probably
realized that although he did not realize that the Putin-inspired immigration from the former
Muslim republic of the USSR will not alleviate the problem. But again, who would even want to
go to today's Russia if not Asiatic muslims. It will slowly but surely make Russia not much
different from the West. Muscovites, just like New Yorkers are already leaving the city,
those who can afford.
And, subjectively, Russia or the Russians don't have the most important ingredient fort the
superpower status – the MENTALITY. The recent (1990-2020) Russian history clearly
displays that. It shows that in order to realize the centuries old dreams of the few (so
called "elites") Russia as a nation and as country had put itself to the downward trajectory:
As an empire it sold Alaska; as a civilization – it destroyed itself by dismantling the
rest of the empire, the USSR. As an ally it abandoned and handed over the most Russophile
german friend and ally E. Honecker and others to the "partners" in the west. And, as an
orthodox and Slavic "brother" it betrayed and abandoned the only people that have always
loved Russia – the Serbs. As an ally it behaved recklessly and treacherously. Russia
will do the same again. So, hate Russia.
Since 2016 I've always believed Trump will be legally elected in 2020 but the DNC/Deep
State will reject the result much more forcefully and violently than they've been doing since
2016. The DNC/Deep State will establish a shadow government minus the shadow. It will not be
Joe Biden leading it but someone much younger, possibly Biden's VP choice – who was
(will be) selected to replace Biden should Biden actually win. Hell, it may even be Hussein
since he's such a treasonous pussy and easy to manipulate. The communists behind the scenes
(aren't they always such cowards) currently coordinating BLM and Antifa riots all over
America will again use rioting but with firearms and bombings. This must be met with a
military response and the violence will be nationwide. At some point either Trump declares
martial law and outright civil war ensues, or a military coup takes over with or without
Trump as a figurehead and they crush the communists and leftists while right wing militias
join in the hunt. The only wild-card is if race driven factionalism within lower ranks cause
wide divisions and some officers break away – then the whole show is over and there
will be no place safe from people with guns and bad intentions. We will be fighting over food
and gasoline. At least, like in China, there will be plenty of dogs to satisfy hunger.
Putin's difficulty is that Russia is really too important for the West to ignore.
Western elites, and not just in the US, but in the EU and the western-hemisphere in
general, are facing a problem: people are beginning to notice that human values are not
universal. This had been one of the main pillars for the existence and credibility of a
technocratic elite, specifically for the people to trust the elites to implement some
unspecified but benevolent neo-enlightenment.
Putin became truly anathema first when he rejected western neoliberal criminality
because
[Hide MORE] it was destroying his country, secondly, when he thwarted amputation
of Crimea by color revolution, and thirdly, when he kept calling out NATO/EU expansionism for
what it was. This made conversion of Russia to the neoliberal finance and 'universal value"
system even less likely than the conversion to Roman Catholicism prophesied at Fatima. Putin
decided that Russia would live by its own values, thank you very much. Russia could
still have been an arms-length ally, but Anglo-Zionist geopolitical extremism forced him to
make cause with a clearly adversarial China, and encouraged him to circumvent the western
currency system as well.
But peoples within the west were also developing this NGTOW (Nations Going Their Own Way)
attitude. Hungary and Poland were already becoming thorns in the side of the EU over the
"human value" immigration, and the elections of Trump and Brexit were further assertions of
populist preferences. Other politicians like Wagenknecht, LePen and Salvini are nurturing
this movement elsewhere. It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal oligarchy, by dialing
up propaganda and censorship, and by using Orwellian cancel terrorism, can quell this
awakening rebellion.
@Wally licies.
6. Dramatically improve US education, from elementary school up.
7. Reform US healthcare, with a view of making it healthcare, rather than extortion racket it
is today.
There are many other things, but anyone attempting to do even half of those listed would
be promptly JFK'ed by the Deep State. That is why there is no one in the US politics decent
enough to even talk about real problems, not to mention attempting to do what needs to be
done to save the country. Hence, I can name no names.
As things stand, even Trump is better than senile and corrupt Biden. But being better than
that piece of shit is not a big achievement.
China allowed Soviet arms through to North Vietnam and was herself giving weapons to them.
The Soviets didn't trust the Chinese though, so they preferred to transport more advanced
weapons on ships rather than by train through China, to prevent the Chinese from getting a
close look on these.
China attacked Vietnam for invading Cambodia, but this war exposed the weakness of the
Chinese Army. Deng Xiaoping was able to push through military reforms after the debacle.
@Ko e and destabilize western nations. These paid activists, opportunists and useful
idiots could be taken care of by the local law enforcement as the constitution mandates if
allowed to do so. The goal of the Zionist criminals is to create enough chaos and breakdown
that people will demand that the national gov. step in with martial law. This is exactly what
the Zionists want so they can get rid of the locally controlled police and implement a
gestapo of thugs that are accountable only to the elite at the top.
The zionist politicians and their operatives from the mayors to the Governors on up need
to be thrown out of office. That is the first step in restoring the Republic.
@alwayswrite ernative media has excellent analysts) instead of immersing in the stinky
products of presstituting MSM controlled by 6 zio-corporations.
Your hysterics about Russia's alleged attempts at destabilizing the EU are particularly
entertaining. For starter, 1. learn about US bases in Europe and beyond, and 2. read about
the consequences of the wars of aggression (also known as Wars for Israel) in the Middle East
for the EU.
If you are in search of neonazi, turn your attentions to a great project run by ziocons and
neonazi in Ukraine. See Grossman, Kolomojsky, Zelinsky, Nuland-Kagan, Pyatt, Carl Gershman
(NED), and the whole Kagans' clan united with Banderites What can go wrong?
Turkey is currently involved in quite a few international military conflicts -- both against
its own neighbors such as Greece, Armenia, Iraq, Syria and Cyprus, and against other nations
such as Libya and Yemen. These actions by Turkey suggest that Turkey's foreign policy is
increasingly destabilizing not only several nations, but the region as well.
In addition, the Erdogan regime has been militarily targeting Syria and Iraq, sending its
Syrian mercenaries to Libya to seize Libyan oil and continuing, as usual, to bully Greece.
Turkey's regime is also now provoking ongoing violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_1565758762 NOW PLAYING
Erdogan leads first Muslim prayer after Hagia Sophia mosque reconversion
Istanbul's Hagia Sophia reconversion to a mosque, 'provocation to civilised world', Greece
says
Turkish top court revokes Hagia Sophia's museum status, 'tourists should still be allowed
in'
Erdogan: Interference over Hagia Sophia 'direct attack on our sovereignty'
Libya's GNA says Egypt's warning on Sirte offensive a 'declaration of war'
Erdogan says 'agreements' reached with Trump on Libya
What Turkish Election Results Mean for the Lira
Erdogan Sparks Democracy Concerns in Push for Istanbul Vote Rerun
Since July 12, Azerbaijan has launched a series of cross-border attacks against Armenia's
northern Tavush region in skirmishes that have resulted
in the deaths of at least four Armenian soldiers and 12 Azerbaijani ones. After Azerbaijan
threatened to launch missile attacks on Armenia's Metsamor nuclear plant on July 16, Turkey
offered military assistance to Azerbaijan.
"Our armed unmanned aerial vehicles, ammunition and missiles with our experience, technology
and capabilities are at Azerbaijan's service,"
said İsmail Demir, the head of Presidency of Defense Industries, an affiliate of the
Turkish Presidency.
One of Turkey's main targets also seems to be Greece. The Turkish military is targeting
Greek territorial waters yet again. The Greek newspaper Kathimerini
reported :
"There have been concerns over a possible Turkish intervention in the East Med in a bid to
prevent an agreement on the delineation of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between Greece
and Egypt which is currently being discussed between officials of the two countries."
Turkey's choice of names for its gas exploration ships are also a giveaway. The name of the
main ship that Turkey is using for seismic "surveys" of the Greek continental shelf is
Oruç Reis , (1474-1518), an admiral of the Ottoman Empire who often raided the
coasts of Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean that were still controlled by Christian
powers. Other exploration and drilling vessels Turkey uses or is planning to use in Greece's
territorial waters are named after Ottoman sultans who targeted Cyprus and Greece in bloody
military invasions. These include the drilling ship
Fatih "the conqueror" or Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who invaded Constantinople in 1453; the
drilling ship
Yavuz , "the resolute", or Sultan Selim I, who headed the Ottoman Empire during the
invasion of Cyprus in 1571; and
Kanuni , "the lawgiver" or Sultan Suleiman, who invaded parts of eastern Europe as well as
the Greek island of Rhodes.
Turkey's move in the Eastern Mediterranean came in early July, shortly after the country had
turned Hagia Sophia, once the world's greatest Greek Cathedral, into a mosque. Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan then
linked Hagia Sophia's conversion to a pledge to "liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in
Jerusalem.
On July 21, the tensions arose again following Turkey's announcement that it plans to
conduct seismic research in parts of the Greek continental shelf in an area of sea between
Cyprus and Crete in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.
"Turkey's plan is seen in Athens as a dangerous escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean,
prompting Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to warn that European Union sanctions could follow
if Ankara continues to challenge Greek sovereignty," Kathimerini
reported on July 21.
Here is a short list of other countries where Turkey is also militarily involved:
In Libya , Turkey has been increasingly involved in the country's civil war. Associated
Press reported on July 18:
"Turkey sent between 3,500 and 3,800 paid Syrian fighters to Libya over the first three
months of the year, the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general concluded in a new
report, its first to detail Turkish deployments that helped change the course of Libya's
war.
"The report comes as the conflict in oil-rich Libya has escalated into a regional proxy
war fueled by foreign powers pouring weapons and mercenaries into the country."
Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led to
the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country, the current
population of which is around 6.5 million, has been split
between two rival governments. The UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), has been led
by Prime Minister Fayez al Sarraj. Its rival, the Libyan National Army (LNA), has been led by
Libyan military officer, Khalifa Haftar.
Backed by Turkey, the GNA
said on July 18 that it would recapture Sirte, a gateway to Libya's main oil terminals, as
well as an LNA airbase at Jufra.
Egypt, which backs the LNA,
announced , however, that if the GNA and Turkish forces tried to seize Sirte, it would send
troops into Libya. On July 20, the Egyptian parliament
gave approval to a possible deployment of troops beyond its borders "to defend Egyptian
national security against criminal armed militias and foreign terrorist elements."
Yemen is another country on which Turkey has apparently set its sights. In a recent video ,
Turkey-backed Syrian mercenaries fighting on behalf of the GNA in Libya, and aided by local
Islamist groups, are seen saying, "We are just getting started. The target is going to be
Gaza." They also state that they want to take on Egyptian President Sisi and to go to
Yemen.
"Turkey's growing presence in Yemen," The Arab Weekly reported
on May 9, "especially in the restive southern region, is fuelling concern across the region
over security in the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandeb.
"These concerns are further heightened by reports indicating that Turkey's agenda in Yemen
is being financed and supported by Qatar via some Yemeni political and tribal figures
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In Syria , Turkey-backed jihadists continue occupying the northern parts of the country. On
July 21, Erdogan
announced that Turkey's military presence in Syria would continue. "Nowadays they are
holding an election, a so-called election," Erdogan said of a parliamentary election on July 19
in Syria's government-controlled regions, after nearly a decade of civil war. "Until the Syrian
people are free, peaceful and safe, we will remain in this country."
Additionally, Turkey's incursion into the Syrian city of Afrin, created a particularly grim
situation for the local Yazidi population:
"As a result of the Turkish incursion to Afrin," the Yazda organization
reported on May 29, "thousands of Yazidis have fled from 22 villages they inhabited prior
to the conflict into other parts of Syria, or have migrated to Lebanon, Europe, or the
Kurdistan Region of Iraq... "
"Due to their religious identity, Yazidis in Afrin are suffering from targeted harassment
and persecution by Turkish-backed militant groups. Crimes committed against Yazidis include
forced conversion to Islam, rape of women and girls, humiliation and torture, arbitrary
incarceration, and forced displacement. The United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its 2020 annual report confirmed that Yazidis and Christians
face persecution and marginalization in Afrin.
"Additionally, nearly 80 percent of Yazidi religious sites in Syria have been looted,
desecrated, or destroyed, and Yazidi cemeteries have been defiled and bulldozed."
In Iraq , Turkey has been carrying out military operations for years. The last one was
started in mid-June. Turkey's Defense Ministry
announced on June 17 that the country had "launched a military operation against the PKK"
(Kurdistan Workers' Party) in northern Iraq after carrying out a series of airstrikes. Turkey
has named its assaults "Operation Claw-Eagle" and "Operation Claw-Tiger".
The Yazidi, Assyrian
Christian and Kurdish
civilians have been terrorized by the bombings. At least five civilians have been killed in
the air raids, according to
media reports . Human Rights Watch has also issued a
report , noting that a Turkish airstrike in Iraq "disregards civilian loss."
Given Turkey's military aggression in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Armenia, among others, and its
continued occupation of northern Cyprus, further aggression, especially against Greece, would
not be unrealistic. Turkey's desire to invade Greece is not exactly a secret. Since at least
2018, both the Turkish government and opposition parties have openly been calling
for capturing the Greek islands in the Aegean, which they falsely claim belong to
Turkey.
If such an attack took place, would the West abandon Greece?
Gaius Konstantine , 10 hours ago
If such an attack took place, it will get real messy, real fast. The Turkish military is
only partially adept at fighting irregular forces that lack heavy weaponry while Turkey has
absolute control of the sky. Even then, the recent performance of Turkish forces has been
lacklustre for "the 2nd largest Army in NATO".
Turkey should understand that a fight with Greece will mean that the advantages she
enjoyed in her recent adventures will not be there. Nor should Turkey look to the past and
expect an easy victory, the Greek Army will not be marching deep into Anatolia this time,
(which was the wrong type of war for Greece).
So what happens if they actually take it to war?
The larger Greek islands are well defended, they won't be taken, but defending the smaller
ones is hard and Turkey will probably grab some of those. The Greeks, who have absolute
control and dominance in the Aegean will do several things. Turkish naval and air bases along
the Aegean coastline will be attacked as will the bosphorus bridges, (those bridges WILL go
down). The Greek army, which is positioned well, will blitz into eastern Thrace and stop
outside Istanbul where they will dig in and shell the city, thereby causing the civilians to
flee and clogging up the tunnels to restrict military re-enforcement.
That's Greece acting alone, a position will be achieved where any captured islands will be
traded for eastern Thrace. Should the French intervene, (even if it's just air and naval
forces), it gets a lot more interesting.
The mighty Turkish fleet was just met by the entire Greek navy in the latest stand-off, it
was enough to cause Turkey to reconsider her options. There will be no Ottoman empire 2.0
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
The Greeks need their navy for surgically precise attacks against Turkey's navy. Every
island, especially the large ones are unsinkable aircraft carriers. No one has mentioned in
any article that Turkey's navy is functioning with less than minimum required personnel. No
one has mentioned that their air force is flying with Pakistani pilots. The only way Turks
will land on Greek uninhabited islands is only if they are ship wrecked and that for a very
very short period of time. Turkey's population is composed of 25% Kurds... that will also be
very interesting to see once they awaken from their hibernation and realize their great and
holy goal of Kurdistan. Egypt will not waste the opportunity to join in to devastate whatever
Turkish navy remains. Serbian patriots will not allow the opportunity to go to waste and will
attack Kosovo and indirectly Albania composed primarily of Turkish descendants... realize the
coverage lately of how the US did wrong for supporting these degenerate Muslim
Albanians.
I have no doubt Greeks will make it to Aghia Sophia but will not pass Bosporus. The result
will be a Treaty that is a hybrid of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Sevron. If the
Albanians decide to support the Turks by attacking Greeks in the North and in Northern
Epeirus they should expect annexation of Northern Epeirus to Greece. Erdogan bases his
bullying on Trump's incompetences and false friendship. This is why America is non existent
in any of these regions. If Trump wins the election it will be a long war and very
destabilized for the region. If Trump loses the war will be much much quicker. The outcome
will remain the same. The Russians will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Israel will
not allow Turkey to dictate in the area. Egypt will not allow Turkey to dictate in the area.
Not even European Union. UK is the questionable.
The West has Turkey's back otherwise the Turkish currency the Turkish Lira would have
collapsed by now under attacks from the City of London Freemasonic Talmudic bankers.
Remember what happened to the Russian Rouble when Russia annexed Crimea?
The Fed and the ECB in cahoots with the usual Talmudic interests, are supporting the
Turkish Lira and propping up the Erdogan regime.
There is NO OTHER explanation.
The Turks have NO foreign currency reserves, no net positive euro nor dollar reserves.
Their tourism industry and main hard currency generator has COLLAPSED (hotels are 95 percent
empty). The Turkish central bank has resorted to STEALING Turkish citizens'
dollar-denominated bank accounts via raising Turkish Banks' foreign currency reserve
requirements which the Turkish central bank SPENDS upon receipt to buy TLs and prop up the
Turkish Lira.
This is utter MADNESS and FRAUD and LARCENY.
London-based currency traders would be all over the Turkish Lira and/or Turkish bonds and
stocks by now UNLESS they had been instructed by the Fed and the ECB or the Talmudic bankers
that own and control both, to lay off the Turkish Lira.
Despite the noise on TV or the press,
BY DEFINITION,
Erdogan and the Turks are only doing the bidding of the TRIBE hence Erdogan has the
blessing and the protection of the people ZH censors the name.
BUT
You know how those parasites treat their host and what the inevitable outcome is,
right?
Indeed,
Erdogan and the Turks are being set up to be thrown under the proverbial bus at the
appropriate time.
The Neo-Ottoman Sultan has inadvertently set up his (ill begotten) country for eventual
destruction and partition. The Kurds will get a piece of it. Who knows, maybe even the
Armenians will be able to recover some bits of their ancient homeland.
Greeks in Constantinople? Nothing is impossible thanks to the hubris and chutzpah of
Erdogan who is purported to have "Amish" blood himself.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
Good for the UK that they have left the EU.
Apart from the Greeks, who would be fighting for their lives and homeland, the only EU
forces capable of acting are the French. German does not have an operative army or navy;
Italy, Spain and Portugal have neglected their armed forces for many years, and the Baltic
and Eastern Nations are unlikely to want to get involved. The Netherlands have very good
forces but not many of them.
MPJones , 7 hours ago
We can live in hope. Erdogan certainly seems to need external enemies to hold the country
together. Let us also hope that Erdogan's adventurism finally wakes up Europe to the reality
of the ongoing Muslim invasion so that the necessary Muslim repatriation can get going
without the bloodshed which Islam's current strategy in Europe will otherwise inevitably lead
to.
Know thyself , 5 hours ago
The Turkish army is a conscript army. They will need to be whipped up with religious
fervour to perform. Otherwise they will look after their own skins.
But remember that the Turks put up a good defence in the Dardanelles in the First World
War.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
What do you expect? He killed Russian fighter pilots and he survived, this empowers
terrorists like him. Those pilots were the only ones at that time fighting ISIS. May they
RIP.
Max.Power , 9 hours ago
Turkey is in a "proud" group of failed empires surrounded by nations they severely abused
less than 100 years ago.
Other two are Germany and Japan. Any military aggression from their side will be met with
rage by a coalition of nations.
US position will be irrelevant at this point, because local historical grievances will
overweight anything else.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
"Libya has been in turmoil since 2011, when an armed revolt during the "Arab Spring" led
to the ouster and murder of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Political power in the country..."
Kinda gave yourself away there. The coordinated assault on Libya by the US, Britain,
France, and their Al-CiA-da allies on the ground resulted in the torture, sodomizing, and
murder of Gaddafi, as well as his son and grandchildren killed in bombings by the US.
Also, let's not forget that Turkey is still in NATO, and their actions in Syria were
alongside the US regime and terrorist proxies labeled "moderate rebels". The same terrorists
originally used in Libya, then shipped to destroy Syria, now flown back to Libya. The attempt
to paint all of those things as Turkey's actions alone is not honest.
When Turkey isn't in NATO anymore, let me know.
TheZeitgeist , 10 hours ago
Don't forget that Hiftar guy Turks are fighting in Libya was a CIA toadie living in
Virginia for a decade before they gave him his "chance" to among other things become a client
of the Russians apparently. Flustercluck of the 1st order everywhere one looks.
monty42 , 10 hours ago
Then they put on this whole production where it's the CIA guy or the terrorist puppet
regime they installed, so that the rulers win regardless of the outcome. The victims are
those caught up in their sick game.
GalustGulbenkyan , 9 hours ago
Turkish population has been recently getting ****** due to the economic contractions and
devaluation of the Lira. Once Turkey starts fighting against a real army the Turks will
realize that they are going to be ****** by larger dildos. In 1990's they sent thousands of
volunteers to Nagorno Karabagh to fight against irregular Armenian forces and we know how
that ended for them. Greeks and Egyptians are not the Kurds. Erdogan is a lot of hot air and
empty threats. You can't win wars with Modern drones which even Armenians have learned how to
jam and shoot down with old 1970's soviet tech.
Guentzburgh , 5 hours ago
Greece should be aligned with Russia, EU and USA are a bad choice that Greece will
regret.
Greece needs to pivot towards Russia which will open huge opportunities for both
countries
KoalaWalla , 6 hours ago
Greeks are bitter and prideful - they would not only defend themselves if attacked but
would counter attack to reclaim land they've lost. But, I don't know that Erdogan is clever
enough to realize this.
60s Man , 9 hours ago
Turkey is America's Mini Me.
currency , 3 hours ago
Erdogan is in Trouble at home declining economy and his radical conservative/Thug type
policies. Turks are moving away from him except the hard core radicals and conservatives. He
and his family are Corrupt - they rule with threats and use of THUGS. Sense his constant wars
may be over stretched Time for a Turkish Spring.
Time for US, Nato and etc. to say goodbye to this THUG
OrazioGentile , 7 hours ago
Turkey seems to be on a warpath to imploding from within. Erdogan looks like a desperate
despot with a failing economy, failing political clout, and failing modernization of his
Country. Like any despot, he has to rally the troops or he will literally be a dead man
walking.
HorseBuggy , 9 hours ago
The world fears loud obnoxious tyrants and Erdogan is the loudest tyrant since Hitler.
Remember how countries pandered to Hitler early on? Same thing is happening with Erdogan.
This terrorist will do a lot more damage than he has already before the world wakes
up.
By the time Hitler was done, 70 million people were dead, what will Erdogan cause?
OliverAnd , 9 hours ago
Turkey is not Germany. Not by far. Erdogan may be a bigger lunatic than Hitler, but Turkey
is not Germany of the 30's. Without military equipment/parts from Germany, Italy, Spain,
France, USA, and UK he cannot even build a nail. Economies are very integrated; he will be
disposed of very very quickly. He has been warned. He is running out of lives.
NewNeo , 9 hours ago
You should research a lot more. Turkey is a lot more power thank Nazi Germany of the
1930's. Turkey currently have brand new US made equipment. It even houses the nuclear arsenal
of NATO.
You should probably look at information from stratfor and George Friedman to give you a
better understanding.
The failed coupe a few years ago was because the lunatic had gone off the reservation and
was seen as a threat to the region. Obviously the bankers thought it in their benefit to keep
him going and tipped him off.
OliverAnd , 8 hours ago
Clearly the lockdown has hindered your already illiteracy. Turkey has modern US equipment.
Germany did not need US equipment. They made their own equipment; in fact both the US and
USSR used Grrman old tech to develop future tech.
The coup was designed by Erdogan to bring himself to full power. When this is all done he
will be responsible for millions of Turkish lives; after all he is not a Turk but a Muslim
Pontian.
Go back and watch the sad spectacle for yourself on C-SPAN's website, if you'd like. I
wouldn't recommend it. As a preview of coming attractions, Chairman Nadler -- who recently
dismissed the
serious, documented violence in Portland as
a "myth" -- concluded his harried Q&A with this: "Shame on you, Mr. Barr."
... Like many of his colleagues, Nadler repeatedly interrupted Barr's attempts to even begin
to respond to the accusations being hurled at him, then concluded his scripted performance with
a dramatic "shame on you!" And so it has gone. Alternating parcels of Five Minutes' Hate,
interspersed with Republicans playing defense and scoring their own points. Occasional actual
questions have slipped through the theater, but the overall episode has been largely
useless.
From Berr opning statement:
Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom
of the grave abuses involved in the bogus "Russiagate" scandal , many of the Democrats on
this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply
the President's factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions.
Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda
today.
So let me turn to that first. As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General
has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice.
He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and
that criminal cases are handled even-handedly, based on the law and the facts, and without
regard to political or personal considerations...
Indeed, it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is right that
induced me serve once again as Attorney General. As you know, I served as Attorney General
under President George H. W. Bush.
After that, I spent many years in the corporate world. I was almost 70 years old, slipping
happily into retirement as I enjoyed my grandchildren. I had nothing to prove and had no
desire to return to government. I had no prior relationship with President Trump.
Watch the whole thing here , or read the full transcript
here . I'll leave you with this.
For much of the past year Trump has caused angst among allies by maintaining a consistent
position that Russia should be invited back into the Group of Seven (G7), making it as it was
prior to 2014, the G-8.
Russia had been essentially booted from the summit as relations with the Obama White House
broke down over the Ukraine crisis and the Crimea issue. Trump
said in August 2019 that Obama had been "outsmarted" by Putin.
But as recently as May when Germany followed by other countries rebuffed Trump's plans to
host the G7 at Camp David, Trump blasted the "very outdated group of countries"
and expressed that he planned to invite four additional non-member nations, mostly notably
Russia .
Germany has rejected a proposal by U.S. President Donald Trump to invite Russian President
Vladimir Putin back into the Group of Seven (G7) most advanced economies , German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas said in a newspaper interview published on Monday.
Interestingly enough the Ukraine and Crimea issues were raised in the interview: "But Maas
told Rheinische Post that he did not see any chance for allowing Russia back into the G7 as
long as there was no meaningful progress in solving the conflict in Crimea as well as in
eastern Ukraine," according to the report.
People's old ways of understanding what's going on in the world just aren't holding together
anymore.
Trust in the mass media is at an all-time low, and it's only getting lower.
People are more aware than ever that anything they see can be propaganda or
disinformation.
Deepfake technology will soon be so advanced and so accessible that nobody will even trust
video anymore.
The leader of the most powerful country on earth speaks in a way that has no real
relationship with facts or reality in any way, and people have just learned to roll with
it.
Ordinary people are hurting financially but Wall Street is booming, a glaring plot hole in
the story of the economy that's only getting more pronounced.
The entire media class will now spend years leading the public on a wild goose chase for
Russian collusion and then act like it's no big deal when the whole thing turned out to be
completely baseless.
... ... ...
New Cold War escalations between the U.S.-centralized empire and the unabsorbed governments
of China and Russia are going to cause the media airwaves around the planet to become saturated
in ever-intensifying propaganda narratives which favor one side or the other and have no
interest in honestly telling people the truth about what's going on.
It's difficult to understand what's going on in the world because powerful people actively
manipulate public understanding of what's going on in the world.
Powerful people actively manipulate public understanding of what's going on in the world
because if the public understood what's going on in the world, they would rise up and use their
strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful.
The public would rise up and use their strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful if they
understood what's going on in their world because then they would understand that the powerful
have been exploiting, oppressing, robbing, cheating and deceiving them while destroying the
ecosystem, stockpiling weapons of Armageddon and waging endless wars, for no other reason than
so that they can maintain and expand their power.
The public do not rise up and use their strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful
because they have been successfully manipulated into not wanting to.
"... The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it, even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control, contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global strike missions, continue to spread across the globe. ..."
"... To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire, becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure. ..."
"... Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma. But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills us. In other words, it's truly time to defund that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless war. ..."
...as Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed
out in 1967 during the Vietnam War, the United States remains the world's greatest
purveyor of violence -- and nothing in this century, the one he didn't live to see, has
faintly proved him wrong. Considered another way, Washington should be classified as the
planet's most committed arsonist, regularly setting or fanning the flames of fires globally
from Libya to Iraq, Somalia to Afghanistan, Syria to -- dare I say it -- in some quite
imaginable future Iran, even as our leaders invariably boast of having the world's greatest
firefighters (also known as
the U.S. military ).
Scenarios of perpetual war haunt my thoughts. For a healthy democracy, there should be few
things more unthinkable than never-ending conflict, that steady drip-drip of death and
destruction that drives
militarism , reinforces authoritarianism, and facilitates disaster capitalism .
In 1795, James Madison
warned Americans that war of that sort would presage the slow death of freedom and
representative government. His prediction seems all too relevant in a world in which, year
after year, this country continues to engage in needless wars that have nothing to do with
national defense.
You Wage War Long, You Wage It Wrong
U.S. helicopters on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41) during the
evacuation of Saigon, April 1975. (DanMS, Wikimedia Commons)
To cite one example of needless war from the last century, consider America's horrendous
years of fighting in Vietnam and a critical lesson drawn firsthand from that conflict by
reporter Jonathan Schell. "In Vietnam," he noted , "I learned about the capacity of the
human mind to build a model of experience that screens out even very dramatic and obvious
realities." As a young journalist covering the war, Schell saw that the U.S. was losing, even
as its military was destroying startlingly large areas of South Vietnam in the name of saving
it from communism. Yet America's leaders, the " best and brightest "
of the era, almost to a man refused to see that all of what passed for realism in their world,
when it came to that war, was nothing short of a first-class lie.
Why? Because believing is seeing and they desperately wanted to believe that they were the
good guys, as well as the most powerful guys on the planet. America was winning, it practically
went without saying, because it had to be. They were infected by their own version of an
all-American victory culture ,
blinded by a sense of this country's obvious destiny: to be the most exceptional and
exceptionally triumphant nation on this planet.
As it happened, it was far more difficult for grunts on the ground to deny the reality of
what was happening -- that they were fighting and dying in a senseless war. As a result,
especially after the shock of the enemy's Tet Offensive early in 1968, escalating protests
within the military (and among veterans at home) together with massive antiwar demonstrations
finally helped put the brakes on that war. Not before, however, more than 58,000 American
troops died, along with
millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians.
In the end, the war in Indochina was arguably too costly, messy, and futile to continue. But
never underestimate the
military-industrial complex , especially when it comes to editing or denying reality, while
being eternally over-funded for that very reality. It's a trait the complex has shared with
politicians of both parties. Don't forget, for instance, the way President Ronald Reagan
reedited that disastrous conflict into a "
noble cause " in the 1980s. And give him credit! That was no small thing to sell to an
American public that had already lived through such a war. By the way, tell me something about
that Reaganesque moment doesn't sound vaguely familiar almost four decades later when our very
own "
wartime president " long ago
declared victory in the "war" on Covid-19, even as the death toll from that virus
approaches 150,000 in the homeland.
President Donald Trump during briefing on Covid-19 testing capacity May 11, 2020. (White
House, Shealah Craighead)
In the meantime, the military-industrial complex has mastered the long con of the
no-win forever war in a genuinely impressive fashion. Consider the war in Afghanistan. In
2021 it will enter its third decade without an end in sight. Even when President Donald Trump
makes noises
about withdrawing troops from that country, Congress approves an amendment to another massive,
record-setting military budget with broad
bipartisan support that effectively obstructs any efforts to do so (while the Pentagon
continues to bargain Trump down on the
subject).
The Vietnam War, which was destroying the U.S. military, finally ended in an ignominious
withdrawal. Almost two decades later, after the 2001 invasion, the war in Afghanistan can now
be -- the dream of the Vietnam era -- fought in a "limited" fashion, at least from the point of
view of Congress, the Pentagon, and most Americans (who ignore it), even if not the Afghans.
The number of American troops being killed is, at this point, acceptably
low , almost imperceptible in fact (even if not to Americans who have lost loved ones over
there).
More and more, the U.S. military is relying on air power ,
unmanned drones, mercenaries, local militias, paramilitaries, and private contractors.
Minimizing American casualties is an effective way of minimizing negative media coverage here;
so, too, are efforts by the Trump administration to classify nearly everything related to that
war while
denying or downplaying " collateral
damage " -- that is, dead civilians -- from it.
Their efforts boil down to a harsh truth: America just plain
lies about its forever wars, so that it can keep on killing in lands far from home.
When we as Americans refuse to take in the destruction we cause, we come to passively accept
the belief system of the ruling class that what's still bizarrely called "defense" is a "must
have" and that we collectively must spend
significantly more than a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, the Department of
Homeland Security, and a sprawling network of intelligence agencies, all justified as necessary
defenders of America's freedom. Rarely does the public put much thought into the dangers
inherent in a sprawling "defense" network that increasingly invades and dominates our
lives.
Unmanned MQ-9 Reaper taxis after a mission in Afghanistan, Oct. 1, 2007. (Wikimedia)
Meanwhile, it's clear that low-cost
wars , at least in terms of U.S. troops killed and wounded in action, can essentially be
prolonged indefinitely, even when they never result in anything faintly like victory or fulfill
any faintly useful American goal. The Afghan War remains the case in point. "Progress" is a
concept that only ever fits
the enemy -- the Taliban continues to gain ground -- yet, in these years, figures like
retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus have continued to call for a "
generational
" commitment of troops and resources there, akin to U.S. support for South Korea.
Who says the Pentagon leadership learned nothing from Vietnam? They learned how to wage
open-ended wars basically forever, which has proved useful indeed when it comes to justifying
and sustaining
epic military budgets and the political authority that goes with them. But here's the
thing: in a democracy, if you wage war long, you wage it wrong. Athens and the historian
Thucydides learned this the hard way in the struggle against Sparta more than two millennia
ago. Why do we insist on forgetting such an obvious lesson?
'We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us'
Sept. 11, 2001: Firefighters battling fire in portion of the Pentagon damaged by attack.
(U.S. Navy/Bob Houlihan)
World War II was arguably the last war Americans truly had to fight. My Uncle Freddie was in
the Army and stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941. The country then
came together and won a global conflict (with lots of help) in 44 months, emerging as the
planetary superpower to boot. Now, that superpower is very much on the wane, as Trump
recognized in running successfully as a
declinist candidate for president in 2016. (Make America Great Again !) And yet,
though he ran against this country's forever wars and is now president, we're approaching the
third decade of a war on terror that has yielded little, spread radical Islamist terror outfits
across an expanse of the planet, and still seemingly has no end.
"Great nations do not fight endless wars," Trump
himself claimed only last year. Yet that's exactly what this country has been doing,
regardless of which party ruled the roost in Washington. And here's where, to give him credit,
Trump actually had a certain insight. America is no longer great precisely because of the
endless wars we wage and all the largely hidden but associated costs that go with them,
including the recently much publicized
militarization of the police here at home. Yet, in promising to make America great again,
President Trump has
failed to end those wars, even as he's fed the military-industrial complex with even
greater piles of cash.
There's a twisted logic to all this. As the leading purveyor of violence and terror, with
its leaders committed to fighting Islamist terrorism across the planet until the phenomenon is
vanquished, the U.S. inevitably becomes its own opponent, conducting a perpetual war on itself.
Of course, in the process, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, and Yemenis, among other
peoples on this embattled planet of ours, pay big time, but Americans pay, too. (Have you even
noticed that high-speed railroad that's unbuilt
, that dam in increasing
disrepair , those bridges that need fixing, while money continues to
pour into the national security state?) As the cartoon possum Pogo once so classically
said , "We
have met the enemy and he is us."
Early in the Iraq War, General Petraeus asked a question that
was relevant indeed: "Tell me how this [war] ends." The answer, obvious to so many who had
protested in the global streets
over the invasion to come in 2003, was "not well." Today, another answer should be obvious:
never, if the Pentagon and America's political and national security elite have anything to do
with it. In thermodynamics class, I learned that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to
create due to entropy. The Pentagon never took that in and has instead been hard at work
proving that a perpetual military machine is possible until, that is, the empire it feeds off
of collapses and takes us with it.
America's Military Complex as a Cytokine Storm
U.S. Air Force basic military graduation on April 16, 2020, on Joint Base San
Antonio-Lackland, Texas. (U.S. Air Force, Johnny Saldivar)
In the era of Covid-19, as cases and deaths from the pandemic continue to soar in America, it's astonishing that
military spending is also soaring to record
levels despite a medical emergency and a major recession.
The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first
is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective
vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as
next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it,
even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even
if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in
the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control,
contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global
strike missions, continue to spread across the globe.
Sadly, it's a reasonable bet that in the long run, even with Trump as president, America has
a better chance of defeating Covid-19 than the virus of forever war. At least, the first is
generally seen as a serious threat (even
if not by a president blind to anything but his chances for reelection); the second is,
however, still largely seen as evidence of our strength and exceptionalism. Indeed, Americans
tend to imagine "our" military not as a dangerous virus but as a set of benevolent antibodies,
defending us from global evildoers.
When it comes to America's many wars, perhaps there's something to be learned from the way
certain people's immune systems respond to Covid-19. In some cases, the virus sparks an
exaggerated immune response that drives the body into a severe inflammatory state known as a
cytokine storm . That "storm" can lead to multiple organ failure followed by death, yet it
occurs in the cause of defending the body from a viral attack.
In a similar fashion, America's exaggerated response to 19 hijackers on 9/11 and then to
perceived threats around the globe, especially the nebulous threat of terror, has led to an
analogous (if little noticed) cytokine storm in the American system. Military (and
militarized police ) antibodies have been sapping our resources, inflaming our body
politic, and slowly strangling the vital organs of democracy. Left unchecked, this "storm" of
inflammatory militarism
will be the death of democracy in America.
To put this country right, what's needed is not only an effective vaccine for Covid-19 but a
way to control the "antibodies" produced by America's forever wars abroad and, as the years
have gone by, at home -- and the ways they've attacked and inflamed the collective U.S.
political, social, and economic body. Only when we find ways to vaccinate ourselves against the
destructive violence of those wars, whether on foreign streets or our own, can we begin to heal
as a democratic society.
To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire,
becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble
deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a
ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure.
Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma.
But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills
us. In other words, it's truly time to defund
that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink
how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless
war.
So many years later, it's time to think the unthinkable. For the U.S. government that means
-- gasp! -- peace. Such a peace would start with imperial retrenchment (bring our troops
home!), much reduced military (and police) budgets, and complete
withdrawal from Afghanistan and any other place associated with that "generational" war on
terror. The alternative is a cytokine storm that will, in the end, tear us apart from
within.
A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, William J. Astore is
a
TomDispatch regular. His personal blog is " Bracing Views ."
To understand what enables all the absurdity noted, try identifying what made short shrift
of Tulsi Gabbard’s run for the democrat nomination. She clearly was raising the wrong
questions about war, and some one like Biden and Hillary were providing the narratives that
enable what is happening to continue.
evelync , July 27, 2020 at 17:26
Why do we live a different public from private life?
The public – American Dream; American Exceptionalism;
The private – CIA Director approved in spite of overseeing torture; secretive paranoid
cold warriors approved to run CIA. Coups/Wars
– The secretive State Dept and Intelligence agencies adopt policies that serve short
term financial interests of MICIMATT
NOT the long term public interest.
Trump was elected in part because people are sick of endless regime change wars and
reckless financial deregulation and unfair trade.
He made promises (which he lied about) because in spite of his glaring flaws he’s a
clever manipulator of peoples’ feelings and he knows what people worry about.
Aaron , July 27, 2020 at 13:48
The war on terror is an Israeli construct, it’s a perpetual war, an impossible kind
of war for our military to win in any conventional sense, whereby we could then pack up and
go home, which is exactly the way the Zionists want it to be played out. The goal has been to
Balkanize all of the countries that Israel feels threatened by and break them apart into
ethnic statelets, and thereby hugely weakening their overall power.
Not unlike what happened
to the former Yugoslavia. Remember that after the war in Afghanistan started, a person in the
Pentagon told Wesley Clark that we were going to war in 7 Middle East countries, and he said
he asked the person “Why?” and they didn’t give him an answer other than
that was the plan.
Sure, there are always the war profiteers and all that, but the particular
mission that our military is serving in that overall region is a Zionist plan.
The American
people have bought this for the most part because the Zionist mainstream media has
successfully conflated the goals of the state of Israel with our own goals, and that we must
equate any and all things Israeli with “The West”, and so whatever antipathy is
directed at them, we are to construe that they are attacking America also. And not only have
many thousands of American troops been killed, tens of thousands injured, the p.t.s.d. and
suicides will go on, as Petraeus seems to imply, for generations. This is a like a terrible,
persistent sickness.
Will there be a modern day Alexander to cut this Gordian Knot? The
financial, emotional, spiritual, moral toll of this forever war is indeed killing our
democracy.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Friday that current tensions in Sino-US relations
were entirely caused by the United States. However, Beijing still hopes to achieve win-win
cooperation with mutual respect with the US, Reuters quoted Wang as saying.
The top diplomat made the statement as he held a video conversation with his German
counterpart.
Beijing ordered Washington to close its consulate in the city of Chengdu on Friday,
responding to a US demand this week that China close its consulate in Houston.
T he majority of House Democrats joined with the Republican colleagues yesterday in voting
down progressive legislation that would have cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent ($74
billion) and used the money to fund healthcare, housing, and education for the poorest
Americans.
The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Barbara Lee
(D–CA) and Mark Pocan (D–WI) was soundly defeated 93-324 , with 139
Democrats joining all 185 voting Republicans in rejecting the idea. Despite the defeat, Pocan
vowed to continue pushing an anti-war agenda. "We will keep fighting for pro-peace, pro-people
budgets until it becomes a reality," he said . Democrats who voted
against the military budget cuts received
over three times the contributions from the defense industry as those who voted for the
reduction. Earlier today, the Senate also voted down the proposal.
The result will no doubt disappoint the majority of Americans as well. A poll
conducted last week by Data for Progress found that 56 percent of the country supported the
idea to defund the military and use the money to fight COVID-19 alleviate the growing housing
crisis. Democrat-voters supported the plan by 69 to 19 percent, with Republicans also backing
it, by 50 to 37 percent. The proposal is hardly a radical shift; the military's budget has
increased by around 20 percent under President Trump alone, reaching near-historic highs.
Housing every one of the United States' over half a
million homeless people.
Creating more than one million infrastructure jobs across America, especially in many of
the most economically depressed locations.
Conduct two billion COVID-19 tests, or six tests per person (44 times as many as has
already been done).
Easily close the $23 billion funding gap between majority-white and majority non-white
public schools.
Fund free college programs for more than two million of the poorest American
students.
A revolution in clean energy. $74 billion could create enough solar and/or wind energy to
meet the needs of virtually every American household.
One million well-paid clean energy jobs, enough to transition most dirty industry workers
into renewables.
Hire 900,000 new elementary school teachers, or nine per school, creating a golden age of
education.
Send a $2,300 check to the more than 32 million currently unemployed people across the
country.
Purchase enough N95 masks for all 55 million essential workers to use, one per day, every
day for a year, with change to spare.
Ashik Siddique of the National Priorities Project told MintPress that he was
disappointed with the results, but that he was hopeful for the future:
It's important to note how quickly the political landscape is shifting around this issue.
This is the first time in decades that Congress has seriously considered reinvesting away
from Pentagon spending. Just a few years ago, it would have been hard to imagine getting even
93 votes in the House and 23 in the Senate -- or nearly 40 to 50 percent of the Democratic
Caucus -- to cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent, as they did this time.
That sets up a much stronger baseline to work from next year -- especially since the
budget caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will expire, giving Americans the
chance to more deeply transform this country's militarized agenda in a way that has not been
on the table for decades."
Siddique's figures demonstrate just how much money is spent on war and what could be
possible in the United States if there was a paradigm shift away from bloated military
spending. The U.S. military budget is by far the largest in the world, rivaling that of all
other countries combined. More than half of all discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon,
with the U.S. spending far more per capita on weaponry than comparable countries. Yet even the
$740 billion defense bill does not tell the full story, as it does not include the costs of
nuclear weapons (borne by the Department of Energy), nor many veterans' pensions.
In February the Pentagon announced its fiscal year 2021 budget request, in which it signaled
a move away from the Middle East as its primary focus, towards that of Russia and China.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared the Asian
Pacific region to be the U.S.' new "priority theater." There appears to be no partisan split in
foreign policy, with both Democrats and Republicans viewing China as an increasing nemesis. In
recent weeks Donald Trump and Joe Biden have accused each other of being in Beijing's pockets
while ratcheting up the tensions with the world's most populous country.
Like with the cut to military spending, however, the political elite's opinion varies
radically with that of the general public. When polling group Pew
asked what was the number one international threat to America, the spread of infectious
disease was by some way the top answer. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has been
cutting health budgets, including attempting to
slash funding for the Center for Disease control. Internationally, he has also
committed the U.S. to leaving the World Health Organization, a move that is sure to wreak
havoc internationally and undermine cooperation against future worldwide health threats.
Feature photo | President Donald Trump, right, looks over a helicopter with United States
Military Academy Lt. Gen. Darryl Williams, prior to a commencement ceremony on the parade
field, at the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., June 13, 2020. Alex Brandon |
AP
Saying that the US had changed Soviet behavior, Pompeo expressed confidence that they could
change China as well, saying that the nations of the world have a duty to help the US "defend
freedom." He also warned that "our children's children may be at the mercy of the Communist
party."
This seems to be harkening back to the language of the historic red scares, and the idea
that China is a real threat to dominate the future is likely intended to scare Americans into
supporting more hostility, as opposed to a serious policy reality.
Either way, it seems like the era of diplomacy with China, at least so far as the
administration is concerned, is over, with Pompeo saying that the US can "never go back to
engagement," declaring China "a Marxist-Leninist regime" and following a "bankrupt totalitarian
ideology."
If an asteroid runs into the earth, any surviving press will blame it on Russia...
The Guardian a few days ago carried a
very strange piece [which has since been removed] under the heading "Stamps celebrating
Ukrainian resistance in pictures." The first image displayed a stamp bearing the name of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_29180504 NOW PLAYING
Russian envoy dismisses claims Moscow tried to steal virus vaccine research
Matt Hancock: British police are not like American police
Labour agrees to pay 'substantial damages' to Panorama whistleblowers
Second Cummings lockdown trip 'not true', says Grant Shapps
Ministers will make decisions on easing two-metre rule, says Sunak
Labour under Starmer is politically competitive again, says Blair
Minister defends Government's 'stay alert' message
Tliab In Trouble In Re-Election Bid
The UPA was, without any shadow of a doubt, responsible for the slaughter of at least
200,000 Polish civilians; they liquidated whole Polish communities in Volhynia and Galicia,
including the women and children. The current Polish government, which is as anti-Russian and
pro-NATO as they come, nevertheless has declared
this a genocide.
It certainly was an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing. There is no doubt either that at
times between 1942 and 1944 the UPA collaborated with the Nazis and collaborated in the
destruction of Jews and Gypsies. It is simplistic to describe the UPA as fascist or an
extension of the Nazi regime; at times they fought the Nazis, though they collaborated more
often.
There is a real sense in which they operated at the level of medieval peasants, simply
seizing local opportunities to exterminate rural populations and seize their land and assets,
be they Polish, Jew or Gypsy. But on balance any reasonable person would have to conclude that
the UPA was an utterly deplorable phenomenon. To publish a celebration of it, disguised as a
graphic art piece, without any of this context, is no more defensible than a display of Nazi
art with no context.
In fact, The Guardian's very brief text was still worse than no context.
"Ukrainian photographer Oleksandr Kosmach collects 20th-century stamps issued by Ukrainian
groups in exile during the Soviet era.
Artists and exiles around the world would use stamps to communicate the horrors of Soviet
oppression. "These stamps show us the ideas and values of these people, who they really were
and what they were fighting for," Kosmach says."
That is so misleadingly partial as a description of the art glorifying the UPA movement as
to be deeply reprehensible. It does however fit with the anything- goes stoking of Russophobia,
which is the mainstay of government and media discourse at the moment. Even at the height of
the Cold War, we never saw such a barrage of unprovable accusations leveled at Russia through
the media by "security service sources."
Attack on UK Vaccine Research
A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The
latest is the accusation that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination
research. This is another totally evidence-free accusation. But it misses the point anyway.
Andrew Marr, center, in 2014. (Financial Times, Flickr)
The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that
there was an effort to obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling
that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than share them freely with
the world scientific community.
As I have reported
before , the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common
research and common vaccine solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven
approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and disadvantage the global poor).
What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the
fact that Russia had
just bought the very research specified. You don't steal things you already
own.
Evidence of CIA Hacks
If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with
certainty the whereabouts of hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to
India, Australia or South Africa depending on where I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging
broadcasting restrictions.
More pertinently, WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release of CIA material showed the specific programs for the CIA in how to leave clues
to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable evidence that the CIA do
computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of
Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the
mainstream media knows to be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.
Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that
former Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks
which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen by an evil Russian who left his name of
Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this narrative.
Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking
Corbyn.
Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared
to open up the NHS "market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on
pharmaceutical prices, I should be very grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the
world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who leaked evidence of just how
systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.
But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted
insider, and I very much suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted
insider.
When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the
whistle.
Crowdstrike's Quiet Admission
If you can delay even the most startling truth for several years, it loses much of its
political bite. If you can announce it during a health crisis, it loses still more. The world
therefore did not shudder to a halt when the CEO of Crowdstrike admitted there had never been
any evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC servers.
Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry presenting at the International Security Forum in Vancouver,
2009.
(Hubert K, Flickr)
You will recall the near incredible fact that, even through the Mueller investigation, the
FBI never inspected the DNC servers themselves but simply relied on a technical report from
Crowdstrike, the Hillary Clinton-related IT security consultant for the DNC.
It is now known for sure that Crowdstrike had been peddling fake news for Hillary. In fact,
Crowdstrike had no record of any internet hack at all. There was no evidence of the email
material being exported over the internet. What they claimed did exist was evidence that the
files had been organized preparatory to export.
Remember the entire "Russian hacking" story was based ONLY on Crowdstrike's say so. There is
literally no other evidence of Russian involvement in the DNC emails, which is unsurprising as
I have been telling you for four years from my own direct sources that Russia was not involved.
Yet finally declassified congressional testimony revealed that Shawn Henry stated on oath that
"we did not have concrete evidence" and "There's circumstantial evidence , but no evidence they
were actually exfiltrated."
This testimony fits with what I was told by Bill Binney, a former technical director of the
National Security Agency (NSA), who told me that it was impossible that any large amount of
data should be moved across the internet from the USA, without the NSA both seeing it happen in
real time and recording it. If there really had been a Russian hack, the NSA would have been
able to give the time of it to a millisecond.
That the NSA did not have that information was proof the transfer had never happened,
according to Binney. What had happened, Binney deduced, was that the files had been downloaded
locally, probably to a thumb drive.
Bill Binney. (Miquel Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)
So arguably the biggest news story of the past four years -- the claim that Putin
effectively interfered to have Donald Trump elected U.S. president -- turns out indeed to be
utterly baseless. Has the mainstream media, acting on security service behest, done anything to
row back from the false impression it created? No it has doubled down.
Anti-Russia
Theme
The "Russian hacking" theme keeps being brought back related to whatever is the big story of
the day.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Brexit? Russian hacking.
U.K. general election 2019? Russian hacking
Covid-19 vaccine? Russian hacking.
Then we have those continual security service briefings. Two weeks ago we had unnamed
security service sources telling The New York Times that Russia had offered the Taliban
a
bounty for killing American soldiers. This information had allegedly come from
interrogation of captured Taliban in Afghanistan, which would almost certainly mean it was
obtained under torture.
It is a wildly improbable tale. The Afghans have never needed that kind of incentivization
to kill foreign invaders on their soil. It is also a fascinating throwback of an accusation
– the British did indeed offer Afghans money for, quite literally, the heads of Afghan
resistance leaders during the first Afghan War in 1841, as I detail in my book "Sikunder
Burnes."
Taliban in Herat, Afghanistan, 2001. (Wikipedia)
You do not have to look back that far to realize the gross hypocrisy of the accusation. In
the 1980s the West was quite openly paying, arming and training the Taliban -- including Osama
bin Laden – to kill Russian and other Soviet conscripts in their thousands. That is just
one example of the hypocrisy.
The U.S. and U.K. security services both cultivate and bribe senior political and other
figures abroad in order to influence policy all of the time. We work to manipulate the result
of elections -- I have done it personally in my former role as a U.K. diplomat. A great deal of
the behavior over which Western governments and media are creating this new McCarthyite
anti-Russian witch hunt, is standard diplomatic practice.
My own view is that there are malign Russian forces attempting to act on government in the
U.K. and the USA, but they are not nearly as powerful as the malign British and American forces
acting on their own governments.
The truth is that the world is under the increasing control of a global elite of
billionaires, to whom nationality is irrelevant and national governments are tools to be
manipulated. Russia is not attempting to buy corrupt political influence on behalf of the
Russian people, who are decent folk every bit as exploited by the ultra-wealthy as you or I.
Russian billionaires are, just like billionaires everywhere, attempting to game global
political, commercial and social structures in their personal interest.
The other extreme point of hypocrisy lies in human rights. So many Western media
commentators are suddenly interested in China and the Uighurs or in restrictions on the LBGT
community in Russia, yet turn a completely blind eye to the abuse committed by Western "allies"
such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
As somebody who was campaigning about the human rights of both the Uighurs and of gay people
in Russia a good decade before it became fashionable, I am disgusted by how the term "human
rights" has become weaponized for deployment only against those countries designated as enemy
by the Western elite.
Finally, do not forget that there is a massive armaments industry and a massive security
industry all dependent on having an "enemy." Powerful people make money from this Russophobia.
Expect much more of it. There is money in a Cold War. Sign in to comment Viewing Options
arrow_drop_down
All Comments 45
jmNZ , 2 hours ago
Most of this can be traced to a group of fanatical Dr Strangeloves in the UK, known as the
"The Integrity Initiative" (sic) , now continuing under a new name since its cover was blown
by ukcolumnnews.
This group is handsomely funded from the public purse by the Foreign Office and its
influence is spread by the BBC and a corps of "disinformation officers" known as the 77th
brigade and 13 Signals, all under the control of the British cabinet office.
They are the ones trying to destabilize America via the Democratic (sic) Party.
And their cover is weekly Russia-bashing stories.
bumboo , 6 hours ago
Craig Murray sounds a reasonable voice. He quit or was fired from his Ambassador job in
Uzbekistan on Iraq war issue. Compare him with our Gen. Collin Powell, Mr. Clean, who lied
about Iraqi WMD in UN, covered up My Lia massacre for a lousy promotion. Now writing books,
public speaking for money and appearing on TVs as a wiseman. Wow.
Thutmoses , 7 hours ago
I think it wont be Russia, it will be China.
If an asteroid runs into the earth, any surviving press will blame it on China
Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago
Thanks Craig..
Any renewed cold War will freeze the instigators, and should it get hot, then they burn as
well..
Unfortunately, in the hot version, mankind gets roasted as well and not just by bombs, but
by..
As for the cold version however, the script had flipped thus..
As Sólómọ́nì Wise averred wisely, the borrower is slave
to the lender, and it doesn't matter if the duplicitous borrower tries to stiff the
lender..
The debts will be paid one way or another..
As for those bamboozled into unsustainable liabilities, there's always the merciful
jubilee, but first things first, lessons must be learned, thinking rejuvenated, lifestyle
changed, recalibration engaged, and vigilance imbibed..
To ensure serfdom culs de sac are avoided once the deceived by delusions are
salvaged..
And thus Craig, the necessity of experience that's bitter, so folks may learn by
necessity, what they chose not to learn via humility..
Cheers...
Really_Brit , 8 hours ago
The fundamental problem with this kind of revisionist narrative - that the Russian
leadership has been wildly misinterpreted as hostile to the west - is actually the existence,
in full sight, of Russia's most obvious propaganda tool - RT. What was called Russia Today
until someone in Moscow twigged that almost nothing being broadcast was about Russia that was
at all likely to upset Putin and his oligarchy or hint at the countries inferiority complex
viz a viz the West. So not what would be seen as free press and free broadcasting.
Nothing remotely like the programs RT / Russia Today has put together (or bought) that
describe civil unrest in the developed world. Or civil unrest in the developing world but
caused by the machinations of the developed world.
The closure or restrictions on Western NGO's in Russia intentionally stops any attempt to
replicate RT / Russia Today. So we will never see the Russian equivalents of recognisable US
ex-TV anchors or ex-CIA sounding off, within Russia , about corruption and criminality in
their motherland. Even sounding off about Russia outside in the developed world carries a
heavy price - just remind ourselves of poisoned ex-spies and Salisbury door knobs!
Tarjan , 2 hours ago
"Salisbury door knobs!"
You're chitting me, right?
~
jmNZ , 51 minutes ago
Ha! Ha!
You're as unreal a Brit as can be imagined.
No one believes the Skripal pantomime. Nor the MH17 'narrative'. Nor the farce where a
supposedly democratic country like the UK supports one of the richest and most arbitrary
regimes, Sadist Barbaria, in the wanton destruction of one of the poorest, the Yemen. And how
many times have the US/UK been caught out cooperating with fanatical jihadis terrorizing
Syria, the only parliamentary, secular state in the ME?
We wouldn't know any of this from the BBC.
desertboy , 8 hours ago
" It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than
share them freely with the world scientific community."
Assumes the intent is to make people healthier.
capital101 , 9 hours ago
War is a racket , from Smedley Butler, should be mandatory reading in school.
I think there is a positive side to this western animosity against Russia and China too.
Because Russia and China now have no good reason to respect western imperialism in the rest
of the world.
During the last Cold War, Russia and China helped many countries in Africa and Asia throw
off their yoke of western imperialism and have some alternatives for their trade and
development. And now we are getting a similar situation.
Russia and China are developing financial tools for international trade independent of the
US dollar. Which in the future will limit US power to impose sanctions and interfere with
trade between other countries. And of course, both Russia and China have goods and
technologies that rival those of western countries. They can provide a complete alternative
for countries that the West is trying to isolate and subjugate.
Perhaps western animosity isn't good for world peace or for the people in Russia and
China. But there is some benefit in this for many less developed countries who need an
alternative to the West for their trade and development.
We have some real competition now, where the competitors aren't colluding with each other.
Which is good for developing countries that need some real alternatives for their trade and
development.
PT , 9 hours ago
"...First they were our enemies. Then they were our friends. Then they were our enemies
again. Then they were our friends again..." - Mad Magazine was pointing this out in the 1970s
... or was it the 1960s?
Judging by the wording and the artwork, probably the '60s.
Fun side note: Compare Mad Magazines from each decade. Which ones had the higher quality
writers? Which ones had the higher quality art work? The answer is clearly visible. The
older, the better.
The UK and US have accused Russia of launching a weapon-like projectile from a
satellite in space. In a statement, the head of the UK's space directorate said: "We are concerned by the
manner in which Russia tested one of its satellites by launching a projectile with the
characteristics of a weapon."
The statement said actions like this "threaten the peaceful use of space".
The USA and UK's constant, unremitting "Putin stole my baby's candy" stories that
nobody expects them to prove are merely making the pair of them look ridiculous. If you're
trying to get Code-Red support for war, step up to the mark and take your shot, instead of
constantly sniveling and making it sound like nobody can draw a peaceful breath until the
Russians have been eliminated from the planet. But I promise you if you do, you are
going to be so sorry. Russia is not Grenada. Time again to trot out my favourite maxim
– 'experience keeps a hard school, but fools will learn at no other'.
Or the US's recently stood up Space Force(skin) USSF – spaceforce.mil (.mil = as
in military). Maybe that is why the UK is whining about it, i.e. to put space between the
US? Oh, and the Brits don't have a capability, having given up launchers in the 1960s.
"Space is the world's newest war-fighting domain," President Trump said during the
signing ceremony. "Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in
space is absolutely vital. And we're leading, but we're not leading by enough. But very
shortly we'll be leading by a lot."
"This is not a farce. This is nationally critical," Gen. John Raymond, who will lead
the Space Force, told reporters on Friday. "We are elevating space commensurate with its
importance to our national security and the security of our allies and partners."
About 16,000 Air Force active duty and civilian personnel are being assigned to the
Space Force. There's still a lot to figure out, including the force's uniform, logo, and
even its official song.
The Space Force will fall within the Department of the Air Force, but after one year
it will have its own representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
The new service branch essentially repackages and elevates existing military missions
in space from the Air Force, Army and Navy, said Todd Harrison, who directs the Aerospace
Security Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
"It's about, you know, all the different types of missions our military already does
in space -- just making sure that we're doing them more effectively, more efficiently,"
said Harrison.
"It will create a centralized, unified chain of command that is responsible for
space, because ultimately when responsibility is fragmented, no one's responsible," he
added.
####
The most interesting bit about the article above is the ommission, i.e. it doesn't
mention offensive space capabilities, even though we know about the robotic Boing X57*
winged spaceplane that swans about for up to a year.
No. Everyone should wait for the US to deploy its weapon systems and then follow!
That would be fair and just because the US is a Democracy and it has earned the right and
more importantly, the benefit of the doubt ad infinitum. Or is the X-37 just there
to sprinkle calming holy water on America's adversaries? ODFO!
The good , a 5 minute segment where a guest picked winner / loser countries post
covid19 world.
Winners: Germany, Taiwan, and Russia, Loser: United States.
It was amusing to watch Zakaria's face contort at the mention of Russia being named a winner,
'wha-whaaaaaaat?' The guest had to reassure Zakaria that Russia is a crap country and only
benefits because of Putin's Fortress Russia campaign and low debt making it capable of
weathering storms. Zakaria's face still frozen in a mask of horror.
The bad a rather long segment on Russia, China, and Iran's meddling campaign for
our next election. This was more painful to me then when I had appendicitis and had to wait
several hours before anyone could drive me to the emergency room.
1. Two experts, a China hater and a Russia hater from different 'Institutes'
2. The gratuitous adding of Iran to the list without explanation. Pro-Iranian views are
invisible.
3. Russian hatefest was over the top. It was a classic case of accusing Russia of what we
do. Russia (aka United States) nihilistically creates trouble and by amplifying discord in
other countries in order to deflect from their own domestic problems and foreign adventurism
in places like Syria and Ukraine.
Nihilistic spoilers? We the U.S. lost in Syria but are now trying to create a quagmire for
Russia and are pulling out all of the stops to make Syrians brutally suffer with a full scale
trade embargo and partition of their country.
But you're wrong about Marines. They kill people for a living. Innocent people. Like
Iraqis. And Afghans. Anyone who thinks that murdering Iraqis and Afghans, who never did
nothing to Americans, nor Vietnamese, who also did nothing to Americans, or, as Cassius Clay
said, "I ain't got nothing against no Vietcong." And he didn't. Because he was an American.
So, I thank the service of conscientious objectors, draft dodgers, and deserters. They are
the real heroes. Takes much more bravery to go against the dumbass belligerent society you
are unfortunately born into. Oh, fuck it, you'll never understand.
@obwandiyag ompletely object to our whole response to 911 as it was indeed a false flag.
If so many people were so easily fooled in the US by our "American Pravda" including
myself, how can I hold it against an 18 year old or some other kid who hasn't even gone to
college that he too cannot see through the dense haze of lies bellowed by those who rule over
us? So yes, I admire their bravery but I want desperately for the US military to withdraw
from the Middle East (and most everywhere else) and return home to protect us and only us
from any real invasion should it ever occur.
We need a) a good military and b) honest leadership. We have the former but not the
latter.
Not a chance. Too many people's livelihood depends on war. From billionaires to the person
who putting bullets in boxes. Anyone who advocate no war will end up in prison for colluding
with the Russians.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Colluding with the Reds, Terrorists, Chicoms, Covid...pick an enemy. That's how it works.
They roll out their psyops and make sure to inform you up front that those who question the
narrative are in the enemy column.
uhland62 , 14 hours ago
They've done it with us since 1970.
A_Huxley , 15 hours ago
Contractors like their world travel and over time.
Too many US camps, forts, bases around the world to keep working.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
The single most powerful voice against the wars in the last two years has been Tucker
Carlson - and look at what they're doing to him.
optimator , 8 hours ago
A vibrant economy can't tell the difference between manufacturing a submarine or a
refrigerator.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Honor your oath and the wars for empire will stop. A standing army is only viable through
the Constitution for a short term defense of the States, not for endless wars of aggression
and invasion for the spread of a military empire.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
Correct. Lt. Ehren Watada refused his illegal orders to deploy to Iraq. His case was
dismissed, and he was simply discharged. Today he co-owns a restaurant in Vegas.
THERE'S LITERALLY NO PENALTY FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW.
alexcojones , 16 hours ago
As an old veteran, I've spent 50 years atoning some how, some way, myself.
"Vietnam veteran Tim O'Brien wrote: "There should be a law . . . If you support a war, if
you think it's worth the price, that's fine, but you have to put your own precious fluids on
the line. You have to head for the front and hook up with an infantry unit and help spill the
blood." As every old veteran knows, the day that happens is the day warfare ends forever,
when bullets are fattening rather than fatal to your health.
Heinlein's proposal in Starship Troopers - that only combat troops be given the franchise
to vote - is a concept with merit
ConanTheContrarian1 , 8 hours ago
I don't know that we have to make atonement. The official government position that we were
invited there to help the legitimate government of South VietNam still holds water. The
Nguyen and Tranh had been at war with each other for centuries until the French took over,
and the war was simply a continuation that the Dogpile Democrats of the day didn't see as
anything other than a way to make money. Just because you reject rightwing propaganda, don't
fall for the leftwing either.
Atlana99 , 16 hours ago
We need thousands of hardcore street activists to print these fliers out and place them on
car windshields all across America:
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
Senate has passed a bill calling for the removal of Confederate names from US bases, but it'd
be more truthful for them to continue to be named after racists, killers & oppressors, as
they embody the values of the US war machine.
"JUST IN: Senate Passes $740 Billion Defense Bill With Provision To Remove Confederate
Names Off Military Bases" reads a
headline from the digital news site Mediaite , which could also serve as a perfect
diagnosis for everything that is sick about mainstream liberal orthodoxy.
The Democrat-led House and Republican-led Senate have now both passed versions of this
bill authorizing three-quarters of a trillion dollars for a single year of military
spending, both by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, on the condition that the names of
Confederate Civil War leaders be removed from military bases.
Unsurprisingly, the Security Policy Reform Institute's Stephen Semler found a direct
relationship
between how much a House Democrat has been paid by the war industry and how likely they were to
have voted for the bloated military budget, which also obstructs any attempts to scale down
troop presence
in Afghanistan.
This is everything that is horrible about the Democratic Party and the ideological position
of mainstream liberals. Their leaders have figured out a way to trade hard objects for empty
narrative. To get people to consent to almost limitless amounts of thievery, murder and
exploitation in exchange for words and stories.
They'll get rid of Confederate names on bases, but they won't even slightly reduce the vast
fortunes they're stealing from an impoverished populace and pouring into global slaughter and
oppression. They'll kneel wearing Kente
cloth , but they won't even think about dismantling the US police state. They'll say "I
hear you, and that's something we're looking at," but they'll never intervene against
plutocrats funnelling money away from the needful to add to their unfathomably vast fortunes.
They'll call you whatever gender pronoun you like, but they'll never do anything to
inconvenience the oligarchs and warmongers.
They'll still make you fight tooth and claw for each empty concession, because otherwise
they'd be devaluing the empty, imaginary currency they're trading you in exchange for the
concrete things they want. But in the end there is no amount of narrative the powerful won't
swap out for actual policy changes of substance, because narrative in and of itself has no
value. Manipulators understand this distinction with crystal clear lucidity. Their victims do
not.
In reality, it would be a lot more truthful and authentic for bases within the US war
machine to continue to bear the names of racists, killers and oppressors, since these embody
the values of that war machine far better than anything with a more pleasant ring to it. As
long as you're robbing the American people to murder brown-skinned foreigners for corporate
interests and geostrategic resource control, you might as well have names which reflect such
values on your war machinery.
So I say keep the Confederate names on the bases. Hell, add more of them. Add the names of
Nazis, genocidal warlords, and serial killers too while you're at it. It'd certainly be a lot
more honest and accurate to have a Fort Jeffrey Dahmer as part of America's murder machine than
a Fort Colin Kaepernick.
War is the single worst thing in the world. It is the most evil, insane, counter-productive,
wasteful, damaging, kleptocratic and unsustainable thing that human beings do, by a very wide
margin. If Americans could viscerally experience all of the horrors that are inflicted by the
war machine their wealth and resources are being funneled into, with their perception
unfiltered by propaganda and government secrecy, they would fall to their knees screaming with
abject rage. They would be in the streets immediately forcing an end to this unforgivable
savagery. Which is exactly why America has so much government secrecy and propaganda.
If Americans could see with their perceptions unmanipulated, their response to the news that
$740 billion is being stolen from the American people by a sociopathic murder machine in
exchange for removing the names of Confederate leaders from its bases would not be "Oh good,
maybe we'll get a Fort Harriet Tubman!" It would be rage. Unmitigated, unforgiving rage.
Which is all the status quo deserves. Which is all the Democratic Party exists to prevent.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Steele's "Primary Subsource" Was Alcoholic Russian National Who Worked With Trump
Impeachment Witness At Brookings by Tyler Durden Sat, 07/25/2020 - 16:50
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
The mysterious "Primary Subsource" that Christopher Steele has long hidden behind to defend
his discredited Trump-Russia dossier is a former Brookings Institution analyst -- Igor "Iggy"
Danchenko, a Russian national whose past includes criminal convictions and other personal
baggage ignored by the FBI in vetting him and the information he fed to Steele , according to
congressional sources and records obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Agents continued to use
the dossier as grounds to investigate President Trump and put his advisers under
counter-espionage surveillance.
The 42-year-old Danchenko, who was hired by Steele in 2016 to deploy a network of sources to
dig up dirt on Trump and Russia for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was arrested, jailed and
convicted years earlier on multiple public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges in the
Washington area and ordered to undergo substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, according
to criminal records.
Fiona Hill: She worked at the Brookings Institution with dossier "Primary Subsource" Igor
"Iggy" Danchenko (top photo), and testified against President Trump last year during
impeachment hearings. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
In an odd twist, a 2013 federal case against Danchenko was prosecuted by then-U.S Attorney
Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap warrants as deputy
attorney general in 2017.
Danchenko first ran into trouble with the law as he began working for Brookings - the
preeminent Democratic think tank in Washington - where he struck up a friendship with Fiona
Hill, the White House adviser who testified against Trump during last year's impeachment
hearings. Danchenko has described Hill as a mentor, while Hill has sung his praises as a
"creative" researcher.
Hill is also close to his boss Steele, who she'd known since 2006 . She met with the former
British intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign and later received a raw, unpublished
copy of the now-debunked dossier.
It does not appear the FBI asked Danchenko about his criminal past or state of sobriety when
agents interviewed him in January 2017 in a failed attempt to verify the accuracy of the
dossier, which the bureau did only after agents used it to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump
campaign adviser Carter Page. The opposition research was farmed out by Steele, working for
Clinton's campaign, to Danchenko, who was paid for the information he provided.
A newly declassified FBI summary of the FBI-Danchenko meeting reveals agents learned that
key allegations in the dossier, which claimed Trump engaged in a "well-developed conspiracy of
cooperation" with the Kremlin against Clinton, were largely inspired by gossip and bar talk
among Danchenko and his drinking buddies, most of whom were childhood friends from Russia.
The FBI memo is heavily redacted and blacks out the name of Steele's Primary Subsource. But
public records and congressional sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirm the
identity of the source as Danchenko.
In the memo, the FBI notes that Danchenko said that he and one of his dossier sources "drink
heavily together." But there is no apparent indication the FBI followed up by asking Danchenko
if he had an alcohol problem, which would cast further doubt on his reliability as a source for
one of the most important and sensitive investigations in FBI history.
The FBI declined comment. Attempts to reach Danchenko by both email and phone were
unsuccessful.
The Justice Department's watchdog recently debunked the dossier's most outrageous
accusations against Trump, and faulted the FBI for relying on it to obtain secret wiretaps. The
bureau's actions, which originated under the Obama administration, are now the subject of a
sprawling criminal investigation led by special prosecutor John Durham.
Rod Rosenstein: In an odd twist, a 2013 drunkenness case against Danchenko was prosecuted by
then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap
warrants as deputy attorney general in 2017. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)
One of the wiretap warrants was signed in 2017 by Rosenstein, who also that year appointed
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and signed a "scope" memo giving him wide latitude to
investigate Trump and his surrogates. Mueller relied on the dossier too. As it happens,
Rosenstein also signed motions filed in one of Danchenko's public intoxication cases, according
to the documents obtained by RCI.
In March 2013 -- three years before Danchenko began working on the dossier -- federal
authorities in Greenbelt, Md., arrested and charged him with several misdemeanors, including
"drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and failure to have his [2-year-old] child in a safety
seat," according to a court
filing . The U.S. prosecutor for Maryland at the time was Rosenstein, whose name
appears in the docket filings .
The Russian-born Danchenko, who was living in the U.S. on a work visa, was released from
jail on the condition he undergo drug testing and "participate in a program of substance abuse
therapy and counseling," as well as "mental health counseling," the records show. His lawyer
asked the court to postpone his trial and let him travel to Moscow "as a condition of his
employment." The Russian trips were granted without objection from Rosenstein. Danchenko ended
up several months later entering into a plea agreement and paying fines.
In 2006, Danchenko was arrested in Fairfax, Va., on similar offenses, including "public
swearing and intoxication," criminal records show. The case was disposed after he paid a
fine.
At the time, Danchenko worked as a research analyst for the Brookings Institution, where he
became a protégé of Hill. He collaborated with her on at least two Russian policy
papers during his five-year stint at the think tank and worked with another Brookings scholar
on a project to
uncover alleged plagiarism in Russian President Vladimir Putin's doctoral dissertation --
something Danchenko and his lawyer boasted about during their meeting with FBI agents. (Like
Hill, the other scholar, Clifford Gaddy, was a Russia hawk. He and Hill in 2015 authored "Mr.
Putin: Operative in the Kremlin," a book strongly endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden at the
time.)
"Igor is a highly accomplished analyst and researcher," Hill noted on his LinkedIn page in
2011.
"He is very creative in pursuing the most relevant of information and detail to support
his research."
Strobe Talbott of Brookings with Hillary Clinton: He connected with Christopher Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Fiona Hill. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hill also vouched for Steele, an old friend and British intelligence counterpart. The two
reunited in 2016, sitting down for at least one meeting. Her boss at the time, Brookings
President Strobe Talbott, also connected with Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Hill. A tough Trump critic, Talbott
previously worked in the Clinton administration and rallied the think tank behind Hillary.
Talbott's brother-in-law is Cody Shearer, another old Clinton hand who disseminated his own
dossier in 2016 that echoed many of the same lurid and unsubstantiated claims against Trump.
Through a mutual friend at the State Department, Steele obtained a copy of Shearer's dossier
and reportedly submitted it to the FBI to help corroborate his own.
In August 2016, Talbott personally called Steele, based in London, to offer his own input on
the dossier he was compiling from Danchenko's feeds. Steele phoned Talbott just before the
November election, during which Talbott asked for the latest dossier memos to distribute to top
officials at the State Department. After Trump's surprise win, the mood at Brookings turned
funereal and Talbott and
Steele strategized about how they "should handle" the dossier going forward.
During the Trump transition, Talbott encouraged Hill to leave Brookings and take
a job in the White House so she could be "one of the adults in the room" when Russia and
Putin came up. She served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European
and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019.
She left the White House just before a National Security Council detailee who'd worked with
her, Eric Ciaramella, secretly huddled with Democrats in Congress and
alleged Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of Biden and
his son in exchange for military aid. Democrats soon held hearings to impeach Trump, calling
Hill as one of their star witnesses.
Congressional investigators are taking a closer look at tax-exempt Brookings, which has
emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is
prohibited from lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Gryffindor/Wikimedia
Under questioning by Republican staff, Hill disclosed that Steele reached out to her for
information about a mysterious individual, but she claimed she could not recall his name. She
also said she couldn't remember the month she and Steele met.
"He had contacted me because he wanted to see if I could give him a contact to some other
individual, who actually I don't even recall now, who he could approach about some business
issues," Hill told the House
last year in an Oct. 14 deposition taken behind closed doors.
Congressional investigators are reviewing her testimony, while taking a closer look at
tax-exempt Brookings, which has emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal.
Registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is prohibited from
lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Specifically, investigators want to know if
Brookings played any role in the development of the dossier.
"Their 501(c)(3) status should be audited, because they are a major player in the dossier
deal," said a congressional staffer who has worked on the investigation into alleged Russian
influence.
Hill, who returned to Brookings as a senior fellow in January, could not be reached for
comment. Brookings did not respond to inquiries.
Ghost Employee
As a former member of Britain's secret intelligence service, Steele hadn't traveled to
Russia in decades and apparently had no useful sources there . So he relied entirely on
Danchenko and his supposed "network of subsources," which to its chagrin, the FBI discovered
was nothing more than a "social circle."
It soon became clear over their three days of debriefing him at the FBI's Washington field
office - held just days after Trump was sworn into office - that any Russian insights he may
have had were strictly academic.
Danchenko confessed he had no inside line to the Kremlin and was "clueless" when Steele
hired him in March 2016 to investigate ties between Russia and Trump and his campaign
manager.
Christopher Steele, former British spy, leaving a London court this week in a libel case
brought against him by a Russian businessman. Dossier source Danchenko's drinking pals fed him
a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" for pay -- which Steele, in turn, further embellished
with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence." (Victoria Jones/PA via
AP)
Desperate for leads, he turned to a ragtag group of Russian and American journalists,
drinking buddies (including one who'd been arrested on pornography charges) and even an old
girlfriend to scare up information for his London paymaster, according to the FBI's January
2017 interview memo, which runs 57 pages. Like him, his friends made a living hustling gossip
for cash, and they fed him a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" -- which Steele, in turn,
further embellished with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence."
Instead of closing its case against Trump, however, the FBI continued to rely on the
information Danchenko dictated to Steele for the dossier, even swearing to a secret court that
it was credible enough to renew wiretaps for another nine months.
One of Danchenko's sources was nothing more than an anonymous voice on the other end of a
phone call that lasted 10-15 minutes.
Danchenko told the FBI he figured out later that the call-in tipster, who he said did not
identify himself, was Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-born realtor in New York. In the dossier,
Steele labeled this source "an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican U.S. presidential
candidate Donald Trump," and attributed Trump-Russia conspiracy revelations to him that the FBI
relied on to support probable cause in all four FISA applications for warrants to spy on Trump
adviser Carter Page -- including the Mueller-debunked myth that he and the campaign were
involved in "the DNC email hacking operation."
Danchenko explained to agents the call came after he solicited Millian by email in late July
2016 for information for his assignment from Steele. Millian told RCI that though he did
receive an email from Danchenko on July 21, he ignored the message and never called him.
"There was not any verbal communications with him," he insisted. "I'm positive, 100%,
nothing what is claimed in whatever call they invented I could have said."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Millian provided RCI part of the email, which was written mostly in Russian. Contact
information at the bottom of the email reads:
Igor Danchenko
Business Analyst
Target Labs Inc.
8320 Old Courthouse Rd, Suite 200
Vienna, VA 22182
+1-202-679-5323
At the time, Danchenko listed Target Labs, an IT recruiter run by ethnic-Russians, as an
employer on his resumé. But technically, he was not a paid employee there. Thanks to a
highly unusual deal Steele arranged with the company, Danchenko was able to use Target Labs as
an employment front.
It turns out that in 2014, when Danchenko first started freelancing regularly for Steele
after losing his job at a Washington strategic advisory firm, he set out to get a security
clearance to start his own company. But drawing income from a foreign entity like Steele's
London-based company, Orbis Business Intelligence, would hurt his chances.
So Steele agreed to help him broker a special "arrangement" with Target Labs, where a
Russian friend of Danchenko's worked as an executive, in which the company would bring
Danchenko on board as an employee but not put him officially on the payroll. Danchenko would
continue working for Steele and getting paid by Orbis with payments funneled through Target
Labs. In effect, Target Labs served as the "contract vehicle" through which Danchenko was paid
a monthly salary for his work for Orbis, the FBI memo reveals.
Though Danchenko had a desk available to use at Target Labs, he did most of his work for
Orbis from home and did not take direction from the firm. Steele continued to give him
assignments and direct his travel. Danchenko essentially worked as a ghost employee at Target
Labs.
Asked about it, a Target Labs spokesman would only say that Danchenko "does not work with us
anymore."
Brian Auten: He wrote the memo on the FBI's interview with the Primary Subsource, which is
silent about Danchenko's criminal record. Patrick Henry College
Some veteran FBI officials worry Moscow's foreign intelligence service may have planted
disinformation with Danchenko and his network of sources in Russia. At least one of them,
identified only as "Source 5" in the FBI memo, was described as having a Russian "kurator," or
handler.
"There are legions of 'connected' Russians purveying second- and third-hand -- and often
made-up -- due diligence reports and private intelligence," said former FBI assistant
director Chris Swecker. "Putin's intelligence minions use these people well to plant
information."
Danchenko has scrubbed his social media account. He told the FBI he deleted all his
dossier-related electronic communications, including texts and emails, and threw out his
handwritten notes from conversations with his subsources.
In the end, Steele walked away from the dossier debacle with at least $168,000, and
Danchenko earned a large undisclosed sum.
The FBI interview memo, which is silent about Danchenko's criminal record, was written by
FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, who was called out in the Justice inspector
general report for ignoring inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and outright falsehoods in
the dossier he was supposed to verify.
It was also Auten's duty to vet Steele and his sources. Auten sat in on the meetings with
Danchenko and also separate ones with Steele. He witnessed firsthand the countless red flags
that popped up from their testimony. Yet Auten continued to tout their reliability as sources,
and give his blessing to agents to use their dossier as probable cause to renew FISA
surveillance warrants to spy on Page.
As RCI first reported, Auten teaches a national security course at a Washington-area college
on the ethics of such spying .
Everyone should wait for the US to deploy its weapon systems and then follow! That
would be fair and just because the US is a Democracy and it has earned the right and more
importantly, the benefit of the doubt ad infinitum. Or is the X-37 just there to sprinkle
calming holy water on America's adversaries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
Off we go into the wild black yonder, Climbing high into space,
Here they come zooming in trying to take our place,
At 'em persons of all genders and sexual orientation , Give 'er the raygun!
(Give 'er the raygun!) Down we dive, spouting our
super duper lasers,
Pew! Pew! Pew!
Onward we flew
With one helluva roar!
Hey! Nothing'll stop the U.S. Space Force!
From the the plains of the lunar landscape,
To the stars of the Galaxy,
We shall fight our nation's battles,
To keep the Cosmos free!
We shall blast our foes with lasers,
In the name of Liberty,
And woe to Galactic tyrants,
That scorn the Land of the Free!
When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is
so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the
strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our
troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."
In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head
feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent
graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era
of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence
abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military
historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress
this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending
so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced
a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much
traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee
just
voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the
outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war
movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a
37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by
the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent:
America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)
Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as
Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of
Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II,
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the
military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His
appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual
arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful
personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post
9/11 wars have been.
Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces
few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island.
Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls
"deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was
still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he
reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."
"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life,"
Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .
When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he
"knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected,
undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire
American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
A Professional Soldier
By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been
promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."
He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a
mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded,
including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."
Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach
history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to
send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform,
in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist
sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an
intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He
completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency
critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but
with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.
Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing
more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no
longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary
four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was
subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and
benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule
against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and
co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one
who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several
left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs
and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive
radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal
publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.
In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military
service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading
and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the
meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.
One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient
of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler
sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I
bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that
"war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Reframing DissentNEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with
the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably
unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many
still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they
long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a
counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face:
Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home.
US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to
"reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But
actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action
from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is
the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the
military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of
"an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran
community."
Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.
But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen
soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven
dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:
"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or
morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at
least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now
countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft
in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance
themselves from its reality ."
At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and
anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that,
Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to
do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these
endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for
revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that
vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable
educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and
college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's
willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it
will inspire many others, in uniform and out.
Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?
Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago
I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a
vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be
a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the
hands of our friends.
dogbert8 , 1 hour ago
War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our
first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets
they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only
area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will
ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.
TheLastMan , 2 hours ago
If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all
parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it
serves
Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago
I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.
I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author
presents.
We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by
MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.
We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of
our overseas installations and bases.
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens
of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling
statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead
of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical
conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true
enemy.
Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?
Max21c , 1 hour ago
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the
citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a
crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical
thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or
intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k
economic sanctions by Washington...
But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and
Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some
degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain
extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute
right or power
IronForge , 2 hours ago
Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the
General's Descendants Served in the US Military.
Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.
The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional
Republic.
PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the
Globe.
Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural
Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite,
Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.
YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above
such Competitive Existenstential Threats.
*****
The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences;
and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal
Collapses Within.
Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective
Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be
Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.
Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and
Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to
Emigration and/or Secession.
Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago
Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often
pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.
Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not
be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.
gzorp , 2 hours ago
Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the
"History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course
of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of
Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....
A DUDE , 2 hours ago
t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC
is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever
is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.
Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.
Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.
Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery
sealed her fate.
BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military
presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As
military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH
PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie
if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance.
November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is
wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC
dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve
America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is
a nonstarter from the get go.
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment,
and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry
president."
I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we
have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he
would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had
called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set
sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit
one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With
several left-leaning comrades ...
Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and
suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit
somehow.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for
service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and
working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And
he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a
racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for
Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never
seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job,
but somebody has to do it."
That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class
muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are
worshipped as gods.
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About
Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our
Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.
The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the
capitalism of death.
The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance,
they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying
Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly
still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even
after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.
Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life
strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly
that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?
One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the
Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the
unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class
KNOWS IT!
Amendment X , 2 hours ago
And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out
of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.
11b40 , 1 hour ago
Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should
never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in
Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.
Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men
who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how
America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today
if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.
Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is
a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when
I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate
and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In
1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were
going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt
at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the
States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he
told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned
with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard
questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out
by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and
we are still there.
I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have
been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for
a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats
and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were
blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and
Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing
China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want
American democracy?", LMFAO
Max21c , 2 hours ago
Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world,"
promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the
next century, not the last one."
The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its
foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack
a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships,
battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington
morons.
Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.
Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago
Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's
book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't
move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the
perimeter." Who needs AI?
Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and
bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be
researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump
fumble?
ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago
Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many
of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan
Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police
spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient
military and police force.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all
Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common
sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going
to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't
going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against
China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the
Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after
any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature
of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick
their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret
police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and
its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.
nonkjo , 4 hours ago
It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.
Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant
but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet
"resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning
time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so
disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer
than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go
to grad school).
The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That
is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist
hypoctite.
Max21c , 4 hours ago
...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial
wave ..."
Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to
happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA,
State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.
Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians
destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign
policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever
wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to
boot.
Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the
register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing
specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday
each month...
Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going
along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War
on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every
minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing.
They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia
and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful
attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated
to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over
whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war
with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's
1984.
Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and
engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less
unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems
like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian
nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and
solutions.
In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either
necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The
sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully
through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems
through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the
Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace
can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's
future.
In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is
that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians &
elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or
their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace
& diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in
their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as
the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad
behavior.
Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago
For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...
Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it "
? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents
should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to
fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968.
When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh !
Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it.
Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads
of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda ,
Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war.
Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had
them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.
A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme
Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned
Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war,
they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex
for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen.
Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
captain noob , 7 hours ago
Capitalism has no morals
Profit is the driving force of every single thing
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago
After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years
later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and
Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????
cowboyted , 8 hours ago
The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were
attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on
Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can
wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted
and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional
authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S.,
spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must
attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the
people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better
life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.
transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago
I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost
demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various
reasons.
1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life
was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for
the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated
cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal
with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.
2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming
soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in
cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than
20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just
become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.
3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another.
There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal
what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will
form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.
4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in
heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war
is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and
get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.
Tortuga , 8 hours ago
So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the
warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo
ron.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced
foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).
messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago
From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international
criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work
for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist
principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens,
knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into
the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that
might be.
bh2 , 8 hours ago
The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.
NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once
stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European
defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now
that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque
expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.
China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map.
Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is
feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect
of either winning or leaving.
Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea
because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.
While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming),
China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They
must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own
people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning
to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be
the final straw.)
FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted
if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on
all sides.
While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of
scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging
the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and
political donors don't care as long as it pays well.
Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging
from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.
The Judge , 8 hours ago
US. is the real threat to US interests.
DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago
An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con
propaganda.
Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started
agitating against the PRC.
FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial
Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against
the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and
after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.
Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the
Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.
Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago
"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had
broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the
attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at
sea.
TheLastMan , 4 hours ago
What constitutes "America's interests"?
the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp
chamber of commerce
Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?
next ?, who owns / controls corporations?
Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago
There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military.
They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they
are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.
847328_3527 , 9 hours ago
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
When schools in Britain
eventually reopen in September, children filling into the classrooms won't just be learning their reading, writing and
arithmetic. On top of these fundamentals, their teachers will spoon-feed them blatant propaganda that would make Herr Goebbels
blush.
The propaganda source in
question is The Day, a news site founded by a team of established journalists and directed at teens. Designed for use in the
classroom, each of The Day's stories is presented alongside a range of thought-provoking questions and exercises to help young
people learn to
"think for themselves and engage with the world."
Though UK-focused, The Day
is used in classrooms around the world as a teaching aid.
A recent article
describes
Russian
President Vladimir Putin as
"the most dangerous man in the world"
and suggests
"nothing
can be done to bring this rogue state [Russia] to heel."
Moscow's entire foreign policy is
"shameless"
and
Putin is described as a man who delights in stoking unrest in the West. The widely-debunked accusations of Russian
interference into the 2016 US election are treated as fact, as are the rumors that Putin meddled in the UK's Brexit referendum
and in last year's general election.
The children are also
offered Bill Browder's opinion that Russia is a
"mafia state running a mafia operation."
Browder,
the site omits, is a magnate and fraudster who made billions of dollars in Russia during the privatization rush of the 1990s
and
reinvented
himself
as an anti-Putin activist once his revenue stream was cut off.
Below the article, kids
are asked to answer a number of questions, such as
"Should Russia be expelled from the
United Nations?"
and even to write a creative story about what it would be like to meet Putin during his KGB days. For
good measure, the New York Times' recent
evidence-free
and
widely criticized story claiming Russia paid bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan is suggested as further
reading to help kids become an
"expert"
on all things Putin.
The Day does not bill itself as an anti-Russia think tank for kids. Quite the opposite. Ironically, its founder, Richard
Addis, wanted to set up the site to fight deceptive journalism, hoaxes,
"slanted
reporting"
and
"stories where the truth is contentious"
-- fake news in other
words.
He was supported in this
quest by the British government's Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy Skills in Schools, which
partnered with The Day to compile a damning
report
in
2018, revealing that only two percent of British youngsters have the critical thinking skills to spot phony news.
"It is clear that our schools are absolutely vital in encouraging children to burrow
through the rubbish and rootle out the truth,"
Addis said at the time. Stories on the site with titles like 'Putin the
terrible' and 'Toxic Putin on mission to poison the West' are clearly what Addis considers balanced journalism.
Balance, however, is not a common trait among British Russia-watchers. Parliament's long-awaited 'Russia report'
relies
almost
wholesale on
"allegations"
to back up its claim that Moscow
"poses
a significant threat to the UK."
The report even relies on articles by BuzzFeed to substantiate its shaky claims.
As slanted as its coverage
is, The Day's message may fall on deaf ears. According to the same government report, only a quarter of older children
actually trust the news they read online. As such, The Day's propagandizing might all be in vain.
"And USA's propaganda is second to none. That's important because winning a war, whether
Cold or Hot, requires a populace that will accept sacrifices. Blaming the other side for
the need for such sacrifices is an art as much as a science."
Was causing the death of two million Iraqi's is one of the scarifies you talk about that
the populace had to accept?
Sometimes I have a problem to understand the way the so called "western people" behave.
I am almost reaching a conclusion that the art of media is to give the populous an excuse
to themselves why they appear to be accepting scarifies.
We should stop lying to ourselves that we care about others. As long suffering is not at
your doorsteps, human race as individuals, is as bad as our governments.
The more money a member of Congress accepts from the defense industry, the higher the
probability that they'll vote how the defense industry wants them to vote. (So probably what
you expected.)
... ... ...
If you order the members of Congress based on the amount each of them accepted from the
defense sector (2020 cycle) with their respective votes then break your list down (roughly)
into fourths, you'll get something that looks like this:
Amount member accepts from
defense
industry Likelihood that member lets us down Less than $3,000 70% $3,000-$9,999 77%
$10,000-$29,999 84% More than $30,000 More than 98% Notes
41 House Democrats didn't let us down (in this case)
These 41 received (on average) $7,005.63 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
179 House Democrats did let us down
These 179 received (on average) $30,075.85 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
Adam Smith , Democratic Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has received
$376,650.00 in campaign contributions from the defense industry so far in this election
cycle. (He also named the NDAA after his Republican counterpart.)
One by one the so-called Russiagate "evidence" have collapsed. The fake Steele Dossier,
"Russian spy" Joseph Mifsud who is actually a self-admitted member of the Clinton Foundation,
Roger Stone's non-existant Wikileaks contacts, Russian Afgan bounties, etc. But the neoliberal
mainstream media still presents these as "facts" with no retractions.
This is not journalism, its disinformation designed to distract the American public from the
failures of capitalism.
The choice of embassies was interesting after a global times editorial I linked a few
days back. It was a recognition of cold war and that what is currently being ramped up by
the US will not change no matter what slimebag is in office. It was a notice that China
would now respond to all US hostile moves but in such a manner that US was more damaged by
its moves than China.
US wanting to decouple would have been hoping China would shut a consulate that was
involved in a lot of US - China trade.
There some interesting parts of this analysis. But as soon as a Professor shows that he believes that The Internet
Research Agency (IRA) troll factory influence 2016 elections his credibility falls to zero. The same is true about believing that
Gussifer 2.0 was not a false play operation by some US actors.
The key problem in the USA foreign policy toward Russia is the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" cherished by Washington
Neocons and foreign policy establishment (which are of ten the same people). Add to this a crown of greedy and unprincipled
chickenhawks (the Blob) who play the anti-Russian for their own advancement, obtaining lucrative positions and
enrichment (Fiona Hill, Victoria Nuland and company) and you see the problem. \
Destruction of the UN attempted by the USA after the dissolution of the USSR is a really tragic event, which probably will
backfire for the USA sooner of later
Notable quotes:
"... The Putin elite had earlier welcomed Trump's election, but in practice relations deteriorated further. The foreign policy establishment is deeply sceptical that the EU will be able to act with 'strategic autonomy'. Above all, Russo-Western relations have entered into a statecraft 'security dilemma': ..."
"... Currently, we are again faced with a situation in which mutual intentions are assessed by Washington and Moscow as subversive, while each side considers the statecraft employed by the other side as effective enough to achieve its malign goals. At the same time, each side is more sceptical about its own statecraft and appears (or pretends) to be scrambling to catch up (Troitskiy 2019 ). ..."
Russia today is presented as out to subvert the West. The chosen means are meddling in elections and sowing discord
in Western societies. Russia in this imaginary looms over an unsuspecting West, undermining democracy and supporting
disruptive forces. No longer couched in terms of the Cold War struggle between capitalism and communism, this is a
reversion to great power politics of the rawest sort. However, is this analysis correct? Is Vladimir Putin out to
undermine the West to achieve his alleged goal of re-establishing some sort of post-Soviet 'greater Russia' imperial
union in Russia's neighbourhood, to weaken the Atlantic power system and to undermine the liberal international
order? The paper challenges the view that Russia is trying to reconstitute a Soviet-type challenge to the West, and
provides an analytical framework to examine the dynamics of Russian foreign policy and on that basis assesses
Russia's real rather than imaginary aspirations.
It has become orthodoxy that Russia under an embittered and alienated Vladimir Putin is out to subvert the West. The
chosen means are taken to be meddling in elections and sowing discord in Western societies. The various special
operations include propelling Donald J. Trump to the White House and fixing the Brexit vote in 2016 (Snyder
2018
).
Putin's Russia in this imaginary looms over an unsuspecting West, undermining democracy and supporting disruptive forces
(Shekhovtsov
2017
;
Umland
2017
).
From this perspective, post-communist Russia is up to its old tricks, with the image of the Russian bear threatening the
honour of a defenceless Europe dusted off from the Crimean War and the era of the great game in the late nineteenth
century. No longer couched in terms of the Cold War struggle between capitalism and communism, this is a reversion to
great power politics of the imperial sort. It also represents the application of the weapons of the weak, since Russia
by any definition is but a shadow of the former Soviet Union, with less than half the population and an economy at most
one-tenth the size of that of the USA. Is this analysis correct? Is Putin out to undermine the West to achieve his
alleged goal of re-establishing some sort of post-Soviet union in Russia's neighbourhood and to weaken the Atlantic
power system so that the liberal international order is eroded from within? In other words, is Russia today a
revisionist power out to create a greater Russia?
Before attempting an answer we need to define our terms. What does it mean to be a revisionist power today, and how can
a strategy designed to 'subvert' be analysed and measured? Some fundamental methodological problems render study of the
question inherently difficult. How can revisionism and subversion be measured? How can the specific actors involved in
such actions be identified and disaggregated? At what point do normal policy differences between states become an
existential challenge to an existing order? The answer will take four forms, each of which further defines the question.
First, an assessment of the charge of Russian subversion and the various approaches that can be used to examine the
simple but endlessly complex question: is there a new quality to Russia actions that build on Soviet era 'active
measures' to denigrate and ultimately to destroy an opponent. This requires an examination of the logic of Russian
motives and policy-making, including examination of the structure of the international system and the dynamics of
Russian international politics, which will be presented in the second section. Third, an assessment of some of the
Kremlin's subversive behaviour in recent years, examined in the light of the earlier sections. Fourth, analysis of the
character of Russia's challenge assesses whether Russia today really is an insurgent and revisionist power.
Active measures and the subversion of American democracy
Is Russia really out to subvert the West? Much of the American political establishment believe that this is the case.
A comprehensive list of Russian sins is presented by Biden and Carpenter (
2018
),
including tyranny at home, the violation of the sovereignty of neighbours, meddling in the affairs of countries on
the road to NATO membership, 'soft subversion' through electoral interference in the USA and France, the manipulation
of energy markets and the 'weaponisation' of corruption. In his warning not to overreact to the Chinese challenge,
Zakaria (
2020
,
p. 64) notes that its actions, such as stealing military secrets and cyber-warfare, 'are attempts to preserve what
China views as its sovereignty'. However, these actions are 'nothing like Moscow's systematic efforts to disrupt and
delegitimize Western democracy in Canada, the United States and Europe'. Why do Russia's actions in his view fall
into an entirely different category?
One answer is that it is a question of political culture. The study of
Moscow Rules
by
Giles (
2019a
,
p. 23) argues that Russia's 'instinctive rejection of cooperative solutions is reinforced by the belief that all
great nations achieve security through the creation and assertion of raw power', and this in turn means that Russia
believes 'that the insecurity of others makes Russia itself more secure', predicated 'on the dubious principle that
there is only a finite amount of security in the world'. Elsewhere (Giles
2019b
)
sums up the policy implications in ten key points, which together do not leave much room for diplomatic manoeuvre or
even engagement with such a wily adversary who 'takes a very expansive view of what constitutes Russian territory'.
Treating it as an equal by normalising relations, as during Barack Obama's reset, 'delivered entirely the wrong
messages to Moscow' (Giles
2019a
,
p. 25). There can be no common ground with such an existential foe, and any substantive engagement smacks of
appeasement.
A second perspective focuses on Russophobia, which builds on the political culture notion of some inalienable and
ineradicable essence to Russian behaviour. The concept of Russophobia is often used to discount what may well be
legitimate criticism of Kremlin policies, but it nevertheless accurately conveys an approach that denigrates not only
Russia's leaders but the people as a whole (Mettan
2017
;
Tsygankov
2009
).
In an interview in May 2017 former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper argued that Russians 'are almost
genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique' (Koenig
2017
).
The work of Smith (
2019
)
complements that of Foglesong (
2007
)
on long-standing American anxieties about Russia. Smith argues that recurrent bouts of Russophobia are prompted by
what he calls the 'Russia anxiety', a long-term pattern of thinking and sentiments about Russia that alternate
between fear, contempt and disregard for the country. The cycle began in the sixteenth century when Russia joined the
nascent European international society. Anxiety that Russia threatens Western civilisation was accompanied by various
versions of 'fake history', as in the publication in nineteenth-century France of Russia's 14-point plan for world
domination -- the Testament of Peter the Great. This forgery is just one example of what Smith calls the 'black legend'
of Russian history: the idea that aggression, expansionism and authoritarianism are inherent features of Russia's
national character. Smith aims to demonstrate that Russia is far from exceptional, and instead its behaviour is
predictable and in conformity with traditional patterns of a country defending its national interests, or as Zakaria
argues with reference to China, its sovereignty. The major exception was the Soviet period, but this in many ways ran
against Russia's national identity and represented an imposition based on chance and contingency. In his view, Russia
today is doing no more than any other state, and its external actions are no more egregiously malevolent than any
other.
A third approach looks at Soviet legacies and systemic characteristics. From this perspective, Russia has undergone
an 'unfinished revolution' (McFaul
2001
),
allowing the Soviet era anti-Western and anti-democratic forces to regroup after the fall of communism. This
particularly concerns the so-called
siloviki
(the security apparatus and its
acolytes), as well as the transformed Soviet
apparatchiks
who became the core of
Putin's model of statist oligarchic capitalism. This 'crony capitalism' spreads its subversion by abusing Western
legal and financial institutions for their own malign purposes (Belton
2020
;
Dawisha
2014
).
Despite the change of regime and the end of old-style ideological confrontation, the Soviet system in certain
fundamental respects has reproduced itself. This is why the repertoire of tactics is sometimes described as a
continuation of Soviet era 'active measures' (
aktivnye meropriyatiya
) (Rid
2020
).
These are designed to undermine 'support in the United States and overseas for policies viewed as threatening to
Moscow, discrediting US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, weakening US alliances and US relations with
partners, and increasing Soviet power and influence across the globe' (Jones
2019
,
p. 2). The term is now used indiscriminately to encompass disinformation and cyber activities as elements of a
sustained strategy undertaken by the Soviet and now the Russian security services to undermine an enemy by exploiting
divisions and the vulnerabilities of competitive and open democratic societies.
The Communist International (Comintern) was established in March 1919 to spread the revolution globally and prompted
the Palmer raids in November of that year in the USA as part of the first Red Scare. During the Cold War there were
plenty of times when Moscow tried to influence US politics (Haslam
2012
).
In 1948 the Soviet Union backed the Progressive Party's Henry Wallace, who had been Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice
president but split with the Democratic Party over President Harry Truman's hawkish Cold War stance. In 1964 Soviet
and Czechoslovak agencies smeared the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, as a racist and Ku Klux Klan supporter.
In 1968 the Soviet Union offered an unprecedented level of support for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey,
including financial aid (which naturally was refused). In 1976 the KGB adopted 'active measures' against Democratic
Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, a virulent anti-Soviet hawk. In 1980 and again in 1984 it appears that Senator Edward
Kennedy sought Soviet support for his presidential campaign (Kengor
2018
).
In 1983 KGB agents were instructed to help defeat Reagan in his bid for re-election. The Soviet goals outlined above
hold to this day in conditions of renewed Cold War, and this is why the term has regained currency (Abrams
2016
).
This is understandable, given the long history of Cold War conflict and renewed confrontation.
What is striking, however, is that most Soviet actions were inept and remarkably ineffective (Robinson
2019
).
We can also add that today such actions are also intensely counterproductive, arousing the hostility of the
authorities against which they are directed and discrediting what may be legitimate policy differences with these
countries. Political opponents are tarred with the brush of 'collusion' with an external enemy, as was the case
during the second Red Scare in the post-war years overseen by Senator Joseph McCarthy. This is also the case, as we
shall discuss below, in the 'Russiagate' collusion allegations, asserting that Trump worked with Moscow in 2016 to
get himself elected (Sakwa
2021
).
The question then becomes: why does Russia do it? Is it part of a single and coordinated strategy of subversion using
covert means, reflecting an overarching doctrine?
This is where the fourth approach, the ideational, comes in. From this perspective, the struggle between communism
and capitalism has given way to the conflict between democracies and autocracies, with the latter developing a
repertoire of techniques to keep democracy at bay (Hall and Ambrosio
2017
).
Each tries to subvert the other using a range of instruments, while advancing soft power agendas (Sherr
2013
).
Since at least 2004 Russia has been concerned with preventing what it calls 'colour revolutions', in which civil
society is mobilised by Western agencies to achieve regime change (Horvath
2011
,
2013
).
This was the issue addressed by Valerii Gerasimov (
2013
),
the Chief of the Russian General Staff, in his landmark article. The lesson of the Arab spring, he argued, was that
the rules of war had changed. Viable states could quickly descend into armed conflict and become victims of foreign
intervention and sink into an abyss of state collapse, civil conflict and humanitarian catastrophe. The article was a
response to what was perceived to be new forms of Western 'hybrid warfare'. He noted that 'Frontal engagements of
large formations of forces at the strategic and operational level are gradually becoming a thing of the past.
Long-distance, contactless actions against the enemy are becoming the main means of achieving combat and operational
goals'. He identified eight features of modern hybrid warfare that were applied to subvert states and to gain control
of territory without resorting to conventional arms. Regime change could be achieved by the use of civil methods such
as propaganda, funding and training of protest groups, and information campaigns aimed at discrediting the opponent.
He stressed that the 'very rules of war have changed', arguing that non-military means such as the 'use of political,
economic and informational, humanitarian, and other non-military measures -- applied in coordination with the protest
potential of the population', can exceed 'the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness, and 'that the open
use of forces -- often under the guise of peace-keeping and crisis regulation -- is resorted to only at a certain stage,
primarily for the achievement of final success in the conflict'.
Gerasimov discounted the element of popular protest against corrupt and authoritarian systems in the Middle East,
North Africa and post-Soviet Eurasia and instead framed these events as part of the radicalised West's regime change
strategies. Following the Russian actions in Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, the term 'hybrid warfare' was applied to
Russia's use of mixed methods (propaganda, disinformation, information warfare and special forces) to achieve what
came to be known as a 'nonlinear' military operations (Fridman
2018
).
What Gerasimov had identified as the Western strategy against Russia was now interpreted as the blueprint for the
Kremlin's attempts to destabilise its neighbours and Western democracies.
As for motivation, this is where a fifth approach comes in, focusing on questions of identity and Russia's search for
status in a competitive international environment. From this perspective, the idealism of Mikhail Gorbachev's 'new
political thinking' in international relations in the late 1980s 'offered a global mission that would enhance Soviet
international status while preserving a distinctive national identity'. In this way, the Soviet Union could forge a
'shortcut to greatness' by winning great power status not through economic might and military power but through
normative innovation and the transformation of international politics (Larson and Shevchenko
2003
).
This instrumental view of ideational innovation is challenged by English (
2000
),
who stresses the long-term maturation of an intellectual revolution in Soviet thinking, which then carried over into
Russian debates. As we shall see, there are many layers to Russia's foreign policy identity, although there is a
clear evolution away from an initial enthusiasm for all things European and alignment with the West towards the
stronger articulation of a great power version of Russian national interests. These great power aspirations have been
interpreted as a type of aspirational constructivism directed towards the identity needs of domestic audiences rather
than the expression of an aggressive policy towards the historic West (Clunan
2009
).
Status issues are important (Krickovic and Weber
2018
),
but they have to be understood as part of a larger ensemble of motivations within the structure of international
relations.
The final approach focuses on the structural characteristics of international politics, whose specific post-Cold War
manifestation will be examined below. Briefly put, defensive neorealism argues that in an anarchic international
environment states typically seek to preserve the status quo to maintain their security by preserving the balance of
power (Waltz
1979
,
p. 121). Offensive realists focus on the maintenance of hegemony in the international system and the struggle to
prevent usurpation (Mearsheimer
2001
,
p. 21). Revisionism assumes that the balance of power does not adequately guarantee a state's security, hence it
seeks to change the balance of power; or that is assumes that the balance of power has changed enough to mount a
challenge to the status quo. In Russia's case, classical neorealism of either type would accept regional hegemony,
with offshore balancing an adequate mechanism to ensure that it did not mount a global challenge. However, the
liberal internationalism that predominated after 1989 makes no provision for regional hegemony of any sort, hence
Russia was unable to exert the sort of influence to which it felt entitled, and hence its revisionist challenge was
manifested in attacks on Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. This, at least, is the liberal structural perspective,
and even the defensive realist position has guarded against any reassertion of Russia's great power ambitions, hence
the concern to ensure that Ukraine was distanced as far as possible from any putative Russian 'sphere of influence'
(Brzezinski
1994
,
1997
).
How are we to adjudicate between these six different presentations of Russian interests and concerns? What is the
standard against which we can measure the dynamics of Russian identity formation and foreign policy? Is Putin really
trying to create a 'greater Russia' by not only challenging the established powers but also by waging a covert war to
shape electoral outcomes while destroying the foundations of democracy itself? Undoubtedly, certain Cold War
practices of propaganda and covert influence campaigns have been revived, while some (such as deep espionage
operations) never stopped, accompanied now by 'black cash' flows (untraceable and illicit payments) to sympathetic
movements, cyber-enhanced intelligence operations and outright cyber-warfare. Some of this predates the Cold War and
is part of traditional statecraft, some is part of revived Cold War confrontation, while some is new and takes
advantage of developing social media and communication technologies. Together they reflect the logic of conflict
stopping short of kinetic military action.
Post-Cold War reconstruction of the West and the international system
What is the character of the conflict? We argue here that this is a structural feature of post-Cold War international
politics. Two very different and incommensurate models of post-Cold War order were advanced after 1989 (Sakwa
2017a
,
pp. 12–19). The logic of
expansion
made perfect sense from the perspective of what
came to be seen as the 'victors' at the end of the Cold War. The long-term adversary had not only renounced the
ideology in whose name the struggle against capitalist democracy had been waged, but the country itself
disintegrated. This really did look like 'the end of history', with no sustained ideological alternative to
capitalist modernity on offer. From the first, the logic of expansion was opposed by Russia, the continuer state to
the Soviet Union. From Moscow's perspective, the end of the Cold War was a mutual victory -- the triumph of the new
political thinking that had matured in various academic institutes and think tanks (Bisley
2004
;
English
2000
).
This is why the logic of expansion was countered by the logic of
transformation
,
the view that the end of the Cold War offered a unique opportunity to move beyond ideological confrontation between
and within states. The idea of revolutionary socialism and class war would give way to a politics of reconciliation
and all-class development. This is more than a 'shortcut to greatness' or a strategy for status advancement (although
it is both of these), but a proposal for a structural transformation of the conduct of international politics. This
demand lies at the base of normative developments in international law over the last century as well as in various
peace and environmental movements today. There are plenty of credible realist arguments to dismiss such
transformative approaches as hopelessly idealistic, but repeated financial and pathogenic shocks and the enduring
threats of environmental catastrophe and nuclear annihilation provide the continuing impulse for transformative
thinking (Lieven
2020
).
This relates to a key point at the heart of Russian post-communist self-identity -- the ambition to join not the West as
it exists within the accustomed binaries but a transformed West where Cold War antagonisms are structurally
transcended. After 1989 the stated Russian ambition was to join the political West as it existed at the time, defined
as the embodiment of the democratic ideal, the rule of law, defensible property rights, and above all the realm of
freedom and independent associational life. However, because of the way that the political West evolved during the
Cold War, when the larger political civilisation, termed after the Cold War the liberal international order, melded
with the Atlantic power system, for a large part (but not all) of the Russia elite this became impossible. The power
system at the heart of the liberal normative order endows US power with a unique character. The hegemonic aspect
provided a range of international public goods, including the framework for economic globalisation. However, this was
accompanied by the practices of primacy, which we can credibly describe as dominion, an ascendancy that has spawned a
vast literature describing the USA as an empire (indicatively, Bacevich
2003
;
Johnson
2002
;
Mann
2005
).
Russian leaders from Gorbachev to Putin insisted that the Cold War West -- what in Russian parlance became known as the
'historic West' -- would have to change with the end of the Cold War to become a 'greater West'. This was effectively
the condition for Russia to join the expanded community, but in the end it turned out impossible for both sides to
make the necessary adjustments. The greater West would not have to repudiate hegemony -- that was too much even for a
demandeur
state
such as Russia to ask -- but Moscow's leaders did seek a change in the terms of dominion through the creation of what it
insisted should be a mutually inclusive security order. Hegemony was to a degree acceptable as long as it was
constrained by the system of international law grounded in the post-1945 international system, represented above all
by the United Nations. Russian neo-revisionism challenges dominance in its various manifestations (empire, primacy,
exceptionalism or greatness), but can live with constrained hegemony.
In sum, the fundamental post-Cold War process in the Russian view was to be mutual
transformation
,
whereas the Western view envisaged a straightforward process of
enlargement
. In
the context in which the main antagonist had itself repudiated the ideology on which it had based its opposition to
the historical West since 1917, and which in 1991 disintegrated as a state, the Atlanticist pursuit of expansion and
its accompanying logic of dominion was understandable (Wohlforth and Zubok
2017
).
Victory in the Cold War and the disintegration of the historic enemy (the Soviet Union) not only inhibited
transformative processes in the historic West but in the absence of a counter-ideology or an opposing power system,
encouraged the radicalisation of its key features (Sakwa
2018a
).
The original liberal world order after 1945 developed as one of the major pillars (the Soviet Union was the other)
within a bipolar system and was initially a relatively modest affair, based on the UN Charter defending the
territorial integrity of states (although also committed to anti-colonial national self-determination), multilateral
institutions, open markets that was later formulated as the 'four freedoms' of labour, capital, goods and services,
accompanied by a prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence. After 1989 the liberal world order, as the
only surviving system with genuinely universal aspirations, assumed more ambitious characteristics, including a
radical version of globalisation, democracy promotion and regime change.
The framing of the 'historic West' against a putative 'greater West' repeats the recurring Russian cultural trope of
contrasting 'good' and 'bad' Europes or Wests, 'with which Russians can seek to make common cause in domestic power
struggles' (Hahn
2020
;
see also Neumann
2016
).
As the historic West radicalised, it also enlarged. On the global scale its normative system, the liberal
international order, made universalist claims, while its power system (dominion) in Europe brought NATO to Russia's
western borders and drove the European Union deep into what had traditionally been Russia's economic and cultural
sphere. This would be disruptive in the best of circumstances, but when it became part of the expansion of an
Atlantic power system accompanied by the universalising practices of the liberal international order, it provoked a
confrontation over Ukraine and the onset of a renewed period of confrontation that some call a New Cold War (Legvold
2016
;
Mastanduno
2019
;
Monaghan
2015
).
In the absence of ideational or institutional modification, let alone innovation, after 1989, there was 'no place for
Russia' (Hill
2018
,
p. 8 and
passim
) in this new order.
Does this mean that Russia has become a revisionist power, out to destroy the historic West? Russia's ambition has in
fact been rather different, but in the end no less challenging: to change the practices of the power system at the
core of the historic West. Once mutual transformation was no longer an option and the idea of a greater West receded
(although it remains a residual feature of Russian thinking), Russia turned to neo-revisionism, a rather more modest
ambition to change practices rather than systems (Sakwa
2019
).
This was the culmination of an extended thirty-year period of experimentation. Contrary to the view of the Russian
power system as some immutable and unchangeable malign force (Lucas
2008
,
2013
),
the first and second models outlined above, foreign policy and more broadly Russia's engagement with the historic
West since the end of the Cold War has evolved through four distinct periods. Periodisation is an important heuristic
device and in methodological terms repudiates the view that there is some enduring essence to Russian foreign policy
behaviour, with 'active measures' seamlessly transferred from the Soviet Union to post-communist Russia. It is
important to note that the periodisation outlined here is
layered
. In other words,
each phase does not simply give way to the next, but builds on and incorporates the earlier one, while changing the
emphasis and introducing new elements.
The first period in the early 1990s was characterised by an enthusiastic Westernism and embrace of liberal
Atlanticism (Kozyrev
2019
).
In conditions of catastrophic social and economic conditions at home and assertions of US hegemony and dominion
abroad (although exercised rather reluctantly in Bosnia and elsewhere at this time), this gave way to a more
assertive neo-Soviet era of competitive coexistence, masterminded by the foreign minister from January 1996, Yevgeny
Primakov, who between September 1998 and May 1999 was prime minister. His assertion of multipolarity, alignment with
India and China (the beginning of the RIC's grouping) and foreign policy activism received a harsh rebuff in the NATO
bombing of Serbia from March 1999. Putin came to power in 2000 in the belief that the two earlier strategies were
excessive in different directions, and through his policy of 'new realism' tried to find a middle way between
acquiescence and assertion. Gorbachev-era ideas of 'normality' were revived, and Putin insisted that Russia would be
a 'normal' great power, seeking neither favours from the West nor a privileged position for itself (Sakwa
2008
).
This strategy of positive engagement was thrown off course by the expansive dynamic of the Atlantic power system,
including the war in Iraq in 2003, NATO enlargement and the Libyan crisis of 2011. As for Russia, the commodities
boom of the 2000s fuelled an unprecedented period of economic growth, accompanied by remarkably successful reforms
that transformed the Russian armed forces (Renz
2018
).
These fed ideas of Russian resurgence and appeared to provide the material base for a more assertive politics of
resistance.
When Putin returned to the Kremlin in May 2012 the new realism gave way to the fourth phase of post-communist Russian
foreign policy, the strategy of neo-revisionism. Already in his infamous Munich speech in February 2007, Putin (
2007
)
objected to the behaviour of the US-led Atlantic power system, but in substance the fundamentals of the new realist
strategy continued. Now, however, neo-revisionism challenged the universal claims of the US-led liberal international
order and resisted the advance of the Atlantic power system by intensifying alternative integration projects in
Eurasia and accelerating the long-term 'pivot to Asia'. By now Moscow was convinced that the normative hegemonic
claims of the liberal international order were only the velvet manifestation of the iron fist of American dominion at
its core. Russia, and its increasingly close Chinese partner, stressed the autonomy of international governance
institutions, insisting that they were not synonymous with the universal claims of the liberal international order.
This, in essence, is the fundamental principle of neo-revisionism: a defence of sovereign internationalism and the
autonomy of the international system bequeathed by the Yalta and Potsdam conferences of 1945. This is accompanied by
a rejection of the disciplinary practices of the US-led hegemonic constellation, including democracy promotion,
regime change, humanitarian intervention and nation building (what Gerasimov identified as Western hybrid warfare)
(Cunliffe
2020
).
In effect, this means a rejection of the practices of US-led international order, but not of the system in which it
operates.
Putin defends a model of conservative (or sovereign) internationalism that maps on to a ternary understanding of the
international system. On the top floor are the multilateral institutions of global governance, above all the UN (in
which Russia has a privileged position as permanent member (P5) of the Security Council); on the middle floor states
compete and global orders (like the US-led liberal international order) seek to impose their hegemony; while on the
ground floor civil society groups and civil associations try to shape the cultural landscape of politics (such as
groups trying to push responses to the climate catastrophe and nuclear threats up the global agenda). Putin and his
foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, condemn the liberal order for not living up to its own standards. As Lavrov (
2019
)
argued, 'How do you reconcile the imperative of defending human rights with the bombardment of sovereign states, and
the deliberate effort to destroy their statehood, which leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of people?'.
This is the neo-revisionist framework, which exposes the gulf between hegemonic principles and practices of dominion.
It is revisionist to the degree that it repudiates the application of US dominion to itself, but is willing to work
with that hegemony on major international issues as long as Russia's status as an autonomous diplomatic interlocutor
is recognised (Lo
2015
).
Neo-revisionism is the natural culmination of a policy stance torn by two contradictory positions. The revisionist
impulse seeks to reassert Russia into an international system in which great power diplomacy after the end of the
Cold War in 1989 had given way to a hegemonic universalism that by definition repudiated the traditional instruments
of great power diplomacy, such as spheres of influence, great power summitry and grand bargains. On the other side,
Russia remains a conservative status quo power intent on maintaining the post-1945 international system, which grants
it the supreme privilege of P5 membership as well as providing a benign framework to advance its model of sovereign
internationalism. This is a model of world order favoured by China, India and many other states, wary not so much of
the hegemonic implications of the liberal international order but of the power hierarchy associated with the
practices of dominion. This is the framework in which Russia (and China) can engage in globalisation but repudiate
the universalist ambitions of the power system with which it is associated.
With the USA under Trump withdrawing from multilateral commitments to focus on bolstering its ascendancy in the world
of states (the second level), Russia (and China) inevitably stood up in defence of multilateralism, in which they
have such a major stake. This is far from a revisionist position, and instead neo-revisionism defends the present
international system but critiques the historical claim of the liberal international order to be identical with the
multilateral order itself (Sakwa
2017a
).
Of course, the US-led liberal order has indelibly marked international society, but this does not entail a
proprietary relationship to that society (Dunne and Reut-Smith (
2017
).
Russia emerges as the defender of the international system as it is presently constituted, but at the same time
advances an alternative (non-hierarchical) idea of how it should operate. On occasion this may entail revisionist
acts, such as the annexation of Crimea, which from Moscow's perspective was a defensive reaction to a
Western-supported putsch against the legitimate authorities in Kiev (Treisman
2016
),
but they are not part of a consistent revisionist strategy. Both at home and abroad Russia is a status quo power.
Putin railed against the West's perceived revisionism in both aspects, but the main point of resistance is the
element of dominion at the heart of the Atlantic power system. In both respects there is no evidence that Russia
seeks to destroy the international system as presently constituted.
This structural interpretation, in which incompatible models of international politics contest, is overwhelmingly
rejected by the partisans of what can be called post-Cold War monism. From this perspective, there is only one viable
order, the one generated by the USA and its allies. There can be pluralism within that order, but not between orders.
This monist perspective is challenged by some recent international relations literature (Acharya
2017
;
Flockhart
2016
)
and of course by states defending a more pluralist understanding of the international system (for example, English
School approaches, Buzan
2014
).
In practical terms the monist imperative, when couched in liberal order terms but rather less so when applied in the
language of Trumpian 'greatness', renders Russia the structural equivalent of the Soviet Union, or even the dreaded
image of Tsarist Russia.
This leads to a fundamental category error. Russia is not a 'revolutionary power' in the sense defined by Henry
Kissinger (
2013
,
p 2), a country that can never be reassured of its security and consequently seeks absolute security at the expense
of others. Napoleonic France or Hitlerite Germany were determined to overthrow the international systems of their
times to create one more suited to their needs.
Russia today is a conservative power, alarmed by the way that the
international system that it had helped create at the end of the Second World War became radicalised after the end of
the Cold War. Critics argue that this radicalised version of liberal hegemony was 'bound to fail', since its
ambitions were so expansive as to classify as delusional, and which in the end provoked domestic and external
resistance (Mearsheimer
2018
,
2019
).
Russia's neo-revisionism after 2012 sought to defend the autonomy of the multilateralism inaugurated by the
victorious powers after 1945 and was ready to embrace the 'hegemonic' goals of the liberal order as presented in the
Cold War years, but came to fear the revisionism implicit in the 'exceptionalist' ideology of the post-Cold War
version of the liberal order, especially when it was accompanied by what was perceived as the aggressive expansion of
the dominion of the unipolar Atlantic power system.
The Kremlin and subversion
In the context of the distinction between the hegemony of the liberal international order and the dominion of the
Atlantic power system, both Russia and China reaffirm their commitment to the normative principles underlying the
international system as it developed after the Second World War. These include the primacy of state sovereignty,
territorial integrity, the significance of international law and the centrality of the United Nations (Wilson
2019
).
However, both are challenger powers in two respects: first, in questioning the assertive universalism that was
radicalised at the end of the Cold War, including various practices of humanitarian intervention and democracy
promotion, accompanied by regime change strategies; and second, dissatisfaction with the existing distribution of
power in the international system, hence challenge American primacy and hegemonic practices. This combination of
commitment to the international system but challenges to the pre-eminence of a particular order in that system is
what renders the two states neo-revisionist rather than outright revisionist powers. To label them as such is a
category error, with grave and dangerous policy consequences.
This error has now become enshrined doctrinally. The US
National Security Strategy
(
2015
)
already warned that Washington 'will continue to impose significant costs on Russia through sanctions' and would
'deter Russian aggression'. Trump's proclaimed intention of improving relations with Russia provoked a storm of
hostility in which Republican neo-conservatives and Democrat liberal internationalists united to stymie moves in that
direction. This is why the US
National Security Strategy
(
2017
,
p. 25), at the end of Trump's first year in power, warned against the 'revisionist powers of China and Russia',
ranked alongside the 'rogue powers of Iran and North Korea' and the 'transnational threat organisations, particularly
jihadist groups'. The National Defense Strategy (
2018
,
p. 2) also identified Russia and China as revisionist states, seeking 'to shape a world consistent with their
authoritarian model -- gaining veto authority over other nation's economic, diplomatic and security decisions'. The
emergence of challengers undoubtedly came as a shock for a power and normative system that had enjoyed largely
unquestioned pre-eminence. Responses to that shock range from intensified neo-conservative militarism, democratic
internationalist intensification of ideological struggle to delegitimise Russia's aspirations, as well as an
increasingly vocal 'realist' call for a return to the diplomatic practices of pre-Cold War sovereign
internationalism.
The first two responses make common cause against Russia's perceived revisionist challenge and have mobilised a
network of think tanks and strategies against Russia's instruments of subversion. The far from exhaustive list
presented here indicates the scope of Moscow's armoury of subversion, as well as the methodological and practical
problems in assessing their scale, motivation and effect. The first is support for insurgent populist movements in
the West. Russia rides the wave of populist and nationalist insurgency, but it does not mean either that Russia is
the main instigator or beneficiary. The Russian leadership has long complained about the 'hermetic' character of the
Atlantic power system and thus welcomes the breach in the impregnable walls of rectitude created from within by the
various national populisms of left and right. In other words, Moscow perceives national populist insurgency as a
struggle for ideational pluralism within the liberal international order, but above all as allies in the struggle for
geostrategic pluralism against the monism of the Atlantic power system. Russia supports some of these movements, but
not to the extent of jeopardising the existing structures of the international system. Once again, the tempered
challenge of neo-revisionism predominates over the insurrectionary behaviour that would characterise a genuinely
revisionist power.
The Alliance for Securing Democracy identified at least 60 instances of Russia funding political campaigns beyond its
borders, although many of the cases are circumstantial (Foer
2020
).
In his notorious interview with the
Financial Times
on the eve of the Osaka G20
summit in June 2019, Putin asserted that 'the liberal idea' has 'outlived its purpose' as publics turned against
immigration, open borders and multiculturalism, but he immediately brought in the structural context: '[Liberals]
cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over recent decades' (Barber and
Foy
2019
,
p. 1). The Kremlin has gone out of its way to identify with right wing (and occasionally left wing) 'populists' who
argue for a revision of the EU's relations with Russia, including a dismantling of the sanctions regime. Thus, in the
2017 French presidential election Putin welcomed the head of National Rally (formerly the Front National) Marine Le
Pen to Moscow, a move that still attracts widespread condemnation in France. Earlier, a Russian bank had made a €9.4
million loan to her party. Even this needs to be seen in context. Putin's favoured candidate in the 2017 French
presidential election was not Le Pen but the more conventional social conservative François Fillon. When the latter's
campaign as the nominee of the traditional Gaullist party imploded, Moscow was left bereft of a mainstream candidate
calling for a revision of the post-Cold War dominion strategy. As for the funding for Le Pen, the loan was called in
prematurely, and the bank was closed down as part of the Central Bank of Russia's attempt to clean up the financial
sector.
As for Italy, the leader of the Lega (formerly Lega Nord) party, Matteo Salvini, was one of the strongest advocates
of resetting relations with Russia as he entered government following the March 2018 elections as part of the
coalition with the Five Star Movement. The relationship was no more than a 'marriage of convenience', with Moscow
only engaged to the extent that it could advance the goal of weakening the EU's sanctions regime (Makarychev and
Terry
2020
).
In a subsequent scandal, one of Salvini's closest associates and the president of Lombardy Russia, Gianluca Savoini,
was taped talking in the Metropol Hotel in Moscow about an illicit scheme to funnel funds through oil sales to
support the League's electoral campaigns (Nardelli
2019
).
On his visit to the Vatican in July 2019 Putin met with the national populists, or otherwise put, the geopolitical
revisionists. This was his third meeting with Pope Francis, and Putin sounded more Catholic than the Pope: 'Sometimes
I get the feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to use certain elements and problems of the Catholic
Church as a tool for destroying the Church itself' (Horowitz
2019
).
The substantive issue remains. National populists in the West repudiate much of the social liberalism that has now
become mainstream, but most also reject the geopolitical orthodoxy that in their view has provoked the Second Cold
War with Russia. On that basis there is clearly common cause between the populist insurgency in Europe and the
Kremlin. For defenders of the liberal order, this commonality turns the populists into a Moscow-inspired fifth
column. The old division between capitalist democracy and communism after the Cold War has given way to a new binary,
between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. The fundamental divide shifts on to new ground, which can variously
be seen as one between patriotism and cosmopolitanism, which is a variant of the tension between revived nationalist
movements opposed to the erosion of state efficacy by neoliberalism within the framework of globalisation. Many share
concerns about the influx of refugees and fear even greater flows of migrants in the future, which in their view will
erode the civic and cultural bonds of Western societies. National populists challenge cosmopolitan liberalism
(Eatwell and Goodwin
2018
)
and thus align with the cultural conservatism that characterises the neo-revisionist period in Russian foreign policy
(Robinson
2017
).
In this new political spectrum, Russia emerges as an ally of the patriots and the anti-globalisers and is condemned
for funding and variously supporting the anti-liberal insurgency in the West. Whole institutes (such as the Political
Capital Institute in Hungary headed by Péter Krekó and the Henry Jackson Society in London) are devoted to exposing
these links and the various alleged illicit cash flows and networks. There are certainly plenty of lurid tales and
examples of European politicians who have been supported by factions in Russia without being transparent about these
links.
However, the common anti-liberal platform with Moscow is only part of the story. The geopolitical factor is no less
important, with both left and right populists rejecting elements of US dominion in the Atlantic security system, and
question the wisdom of the inexorable drive to the East that inevitably alienates Russia. Here they make common cause
with international relations realists as well as pragmatists like George Kennan, who in 1998 warned of the
deleterious effects on European security of Moscow's inevitable response to NATO enlargement (Friedman
1998
).
Today these groups are in the vanguard in calling for an end to the sanctions regime, which in their view misses the
point -- that Russia's actions in Ukraine and elsewhere after 2014 was a response to the provocative actions of the
Atlantic power system in the first place. In other words, anti-liberalism is only one dimension of the putative
alliance between national populism in Europe and Moscow. Geopolitical revisionism is perhaps the most important one,
and thus national populist movements incur the wrath of the national security establishments. In the UK this led to
the creation of the Integrity Initiative and its various European and American affiliates, sponsored by the shadowy
so-called Institute of Statecraft, funded by the British state.
There is a third dimension -- in addition to geopolitical revisionism and anti-cosmopolitanism -- in the putative alignment
of national populism with Moscow, and that is the question of pluralism. Post-Cold War liberalism entered a
paradoxical turn that in the end forswore the fundamental principles on which it is based -- tolerance and pluralism
(Horsfield
2017
).
In a situation where the liberal idea faced no serious domestic or geopolitical opposition, it became radicalised and
thus eroded its own values. The US-led liberal international order, as suggested above, posed as synonymous with
order itself. There could be no legitimate outside to its own expansive ambitions. The counterpart to universalism is
monism, which eroded the coherence of liberalism in domestic and foreign policy (Sakwa
2017b
,
2018b
).
This helps explain why relations with the EU deteriorated so drastically after 2004.
The influx of East European
countries accentuated monism by embracing the security guarantees offered by American dominion. Extreme partisans of
this view have little time for the hegemonic normative agenda and view the EU as just part of the Atlantic alliance
system, and not necessarily the most important one. They radically repudiate Gorbachevian ideas about a common
European home or a greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok and condemn those who suggest rapprochement with Moscow
as 'Trojan horses' (Orenstein and Keleman
2017
),
the name of a series of Atlantic Council reports exposing Russian contacts in the West. For them, security guarantees
from Washington are the priority. Thus, pan-continental ideas gave way to an intensified Atlanticism, and dominion
prevailed over hegemony. One manifestation of this was the Polish-inspired Eastern Partnership, which in the end
became an instrument for the expansion of the EU's geopolitical influence in its neighbourhood, provoking the Ukraine
crisis in 2014 (Mearsheimer
2014
).
The European Neighbourhood Policy thereafter became more differentiated and thus accepted the pluralism that it had
earlier been in danger of repudiating.
In short, geopolitical revisionist forces are at play in Europe and the USA, and Russian neo-revisionism makes common
cause with them to the degree that they offer more pluralist perspectives on international politics and challenge the
monist dominion of the Atlantic power system, but the degree to which Moscow supports let alone sponsors this
challenge to the post-Cold War order is questionable. This links to a second form of Russian subversion, namely
collusion with anti-establishment figures. The most spectacular case of this is the charge that Moscow colluded with
Trump to steal the 2016 presidential election.
After nearly two years of work, in March 2019 the Robert Mueller
Special Counsel Report into Russiagate boldly asserted that 'The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election
in sweeping and systematic fashion' (Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, p. 1). However, it then rather lamely conceded that 'the investigation did not establish that members of the
Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities'
(Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, pp. 5 and 173). Once again reinforcing the geopolitical concerns underlying charges of Russian subversion,
the instigators of Russiagate became the heart of the 'resistance' to the president. Alongside credible concerns
about his impact on American democratic institutions, they also opposed the rapprochement with Russia that Trump had
proclaimed as one of his campaign goals.
In his major foreign policy speech delivered at the Mayflower Hotel in
Washington on 27 April 2016, Trump argued that 'I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with
Russia -- from a position of strength -- is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end. Some say the
Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out'. Trump promised that America would get 'out of the
nation-building business and instead [focus] on creating stability in the world' (Transcript
2016
).
This represented a radical rethinking of foreign policy priorities, and although some of the themes had sounded
before, together they challenged the foundations of the post-Cold War international order. They also suited Russia,
since the expansive Atlantic system had increasingly become a matter of concern in the Kremlin. This geopolitical
coincidence of interests intersected with domestic US political conflicts to create Russiagate, which stymied
putative moves towards a new détente.
The third subversive strategy imputed to Russia is cyber-warfare in various forms. There are plenty of cases of
Russian hacking, including the attack on the German parliament in 2015, which the German chancellor Angela Merkel
condemned as 'outrageous', noting that it impeded her attempts 'to have a better relationship with Russia' (Bennhold
2020
).
She had been equally outraged when she discovered that her office had been bugged by the NSA. In France, 2 days
before the second-round presidential vote on 7 May 2017 20,000 campaign emails from the Emmanuel Macron campaign were
uploaded to Pastebin, a file-sharing site, and then posted on 4chan, an anonymous message board. The Macron team
denounced Russia for a 'high level attack', but even the Atlantic Council reported that the relevant French security
agency 'declared that no conclusive evidence pointed to Russian groups', and 'that the simplicity of the attacks
pointed toward an actor with lower capabilities' (Galante and Ee
2018
,
p. 12). The regulation of hostile cyber activity is crucial, especially when accurate attribution is so difficult and
'false flag' attacks so easy.
This applies to the key Russiagate charge that Russian military intelligence (the GRU) 'hacked' into the server of
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC) and released
embarrassing materials to WikiLeaks, the web-based investigative site founded by Julian Assange in 2006. The
publication of the emails was allegedly coordinated in some way with the Trump team. The material revealed that the
DNC opposed the campaign of the independent left-leaning senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, to ensure Clinton's
nomination. The hackers also gained access to the emails of Clinton's campaign director, John Podesta, following a
successful spearphishing email sent on 19 March 2016. The 50,000 Podesta emails exposed Clinton's ties with Wall
Street bankers, high speaking fees and apparent hypocrisy in condemning privilege while enjoying its benefits. The
Russian hackers undoubtedly sought to mine political intelligence, but whether they intended specifically to help
Trump is more questionable. The Mueller report detailed the specific GRU cyber-warfare units which hacked the Clinton
campaign and the DNC and then released the emails through Russian-sponsored cut-outs, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, as
well as WikiLeaks. These were 'designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election and undermine
the Clinton Campaign' (Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, p. 36).
Strikingly, the FBI or Mueller never conducted forensic examinations of their own and instead relied on CrowdStrike,
a private contractor hired by the Democrats to examine their servers. The material was then published, according to
the report, through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, 'fictitious online personas' created by the GRU, and later through
WikiLeaks. Mueller argues that Guccifer 2.0 was the source of the emails and that he was a persona managed by Russian
operators (Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, p. 47). Mueller alleges that Assange worked for or conspired with Russian agencies, but Assange states
unequivocally that the Russian government was not the source of the emails, and (surprisingly), he was never
questioned by Mueller. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group argues that the DNC emails were
physically downloaded and then transferred (by unknown persons) to WikiLeaks rather than being extruded via an
electronic download (Binney and McGovern
2017
).
In Congressional testimony in December 2017 CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry (
2017
)
admitted that he could not confirm that material had actually been exfiltrated from the DNC servers.
The fourth major subversive strategy is disinformation as well as media manipulation. The Internet Research Agency
(IRA) based in St Petersburg deployed sock puppet accounts (trolls) and their automated versions (bots) to influence
public debate by sharing accounts and voicing divisive opinions. These allegedly shaped voter preferences and
depressed turnout among some key constituencies, above all people of colour, in the 2016 US election. The US
Intelligence Community Assessment (
2017
,
p. 1) on 6 January 2017 accused Russia of trying to undermine American democracy and charged with 'high confidence'
that Putin personally ordered 'an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent
goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency'. The ICA was issued in the name of 17 intelligence agencies, although later it
became clear that it had been prepared by a 'hand-picked' group selected by Office of the DNI head, James Clapper
(Full Transcript
2017
).
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (
2020
,
Vol. 4, p. 6) in April 2020 issued its fourth report in its Russia investigation arguing that 'the ICA presents a
coherent and well-constructed basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential
election', a view that is at odds with most commentary on what is usually considered a slipshod and poorly sourced
document (for a summary of critiques, see McCarthy
2019
,
2020; Gessen
2017
).
The coronavirus pandemic in 2020 prompted a new wave of criticism of Russia's disinformation efforts. The Strategic
Communications and Analysis division of the European External Action Service, colloquially known as EUvsDisinfo,
identified a 'trilateral convergence of disinformation narratives' being promoted by China, Iran and Russia (Jozwiak
2020
).
The work of EUvsDisinfo work was examined by the Reframing Russia group at the University of Manchester (Hutchings
and Tolz
2020
).
They examined the specific stories that had been identified as disinformation, and took a broader look at reportage
of the pandemic on Russian television, in particular on Channel 1. They found that 'there was little sign here of the
coordinated pro-Kremlin "conspiracy theory propaganda" flagged by EUvsDisinfo'. They went further to note that its
misrepresentation of Russian Covid-19 coverage was 'troubling' in two respects. First, through 'omission', with
sentences taken out of context and 'rephrased in the form of summaries and headlines which make them sound
particularly outrageous'. The second way is through 'blatant distortion'. For example, EUvsDisinfo claimed that
Sputnik Latvia stated that 'Covid-19 had been designed specifically to kill elderly people', whereas in fact the
article had ridiculed such conspiracy theories and highlighted 'their idiocy'. Reframing Russia questioned
EUvsDisinfo's methodology, assuming that 'random websites without any traceable links to Russian state structures'
were analogous to state-funded media agencies, and that all were part of a coordinated Kremlin-run campaign. It even
included 'conspirological, far-right websites which are actually critical of Putin'. They conclude that
'EUvsDisinfo's headlines and summaries border on disinformation'. Examination of the source material 'cited by
EUvsDisinfo demonstrates that the Russian state is, in fact, not targeting Western countries with an organised
campaign around the current public health crisis'. They ask how a situation was created in which 'an EU-funded body
set up to fight disinformation ends up producing it'. Reframing Russia advances two hypotheses to explain how things
could be got so wrong. The first is 'a profound misunderstanding of how the media in neo-authoritarian systems such
as Russia's work', with not everything managed by the Kremlin. Second, 'The outsourcing of services by state
institutions to third parties without a proper assessment of their qualifications to do the required work', In the
case of EUvsDisinfo, research is outsourced to some 400 volunteers, who are 'operating in a post-Soviet space
saturated by anti-Russian attitudes'.
It is in this context that a burgeoning literature examines possible responses. An article in
Foreign
Policy
in July 2019 argued that 'Moscow now acts regularly against US interests with impunity'. The question, in
the view of the author, was how to rebuild deterrence -- 'how to get Putin to start fearing the United States again'.
The problem was defined in broad terms: 'how to convince Putin that he can't afford to keep trying to disrupt the
global order and undermine the United States, the West, and democracy itself'. The charge list was a long one:
Over the
last decade, Putin has provoked Washington again and again: by invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, attacking
Ukraine, assassinating opponents at home and abroad, and interfering in elections throughout the West. In each
case the underwhelming US response helped convince Putin that he could get away with more such behaviour.
To 'get Putin to start respecting the United States again' such measures as toughening sanctions, strengthening
military alliances, and conducting more assertive diplomacy were recommended (Geltser
2019
).
Simpson and Fritsch (
2019
),
former
Wall Street Journal
writers who founded Fusion GPS, the agency that in 2016
hired Christopher Steele to prepare the infamous dossier on Trump's links with Russia, insisted that Britain needed
its own Mueller report to investigate Russia's role in the Brexit vote. They argued that such an enquiry was
'essential to halt Russia's attack on Britain's democracy' (Simpson and Fritsch
2019
).
The Kremlin Watch Program (
2019
)
of the Prague-based European Values Center for Security Policy suggested 20 measures to counter 'hostile Russian
interference'.
A Pentagon assessment in June 2019 argued that the USA was ill-equipped to counter 'the increasingly brazen political
warfare Russia is waging to undermine democracies' (Bender
2019
).
A 150-page study prepared for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the USA was still underestimating the
scope of Russia's aggression, including the use of propaganda and disinformation to sway public opinion in Europe and
across the globe. The study also warned against the growing alignment of Russia and China, which were opposed to
America's system of international alliances and shared a proclivity for 'authoritarian stability'. The authors argued
that domestic disarray impeded the USA's ability to respond (Department of Defense
2019
).
Natalia Arno, the head of the Free Russia Foundation, agreed with the report's finding and argued that 'Russia is
attacking Western institutions in ways more shrewd and strategically discreet than many realize' (Bender
2019
).
The Pentagon report recommended that the State Department should take the lead in devising more aggressive 'influence
operations', including sowing division between Russia and China. The study analysed what it called 'gray zone'
activities, the attempt by Putin's regime to undermine democratic nations, in particular those on Russia's periphery,
through 'hybrid' measures, falling short of direct military action. However, although warning of Moscow's alignment
with Beijing, the report recommended cooperation with Russia in key areas such as strategic nuclear weapons. One of
the authors, John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School, argued that Ronald Reagan's offer in the 1980s to share
research on ballistic missile defence (BMD) should be revisited. The report suggested that while elites and the
people broadly supported Putin's foreign policy and the striving for great power status, this was liable to weaken
when faced by socio-economic problems.
Inevitably, forces seeking to break the liberal hegemony at home will make common cause with an external power that
is also interested in breaking that expansive hegemony. Russia looks for friends wherever it can find them, and seeks
a way out of the impasse of the post-Cold War security order. However, it is important to stress the limits to that
alignment. If Russia were a genuinely revisionist power, then it would make sense to ally with any force destructive
of the old order; but as argued above, Russia is a neo-revisionist power -- concerned with changing the monist practices
of post-Cold War liberalism, but not with changing the international system in its entirety. This means that Russia
is quite happy to work within existing structures as long as monism can be kept in check. The struggle against 'fake
news' and 'Russian disinformation' threatens the pluralism at the heart of traditional liberalism. That is why the
investigation into the alleged collusion between the Trump camp and Russia in the 2016 presidential election was more
damaging than the putative original offence. When policy differences and divergences in value preferences are
delegitimated and couched in binary Cold War terms, then the Atlantic power system is in danger of becoming
dangerously hermetic. Immunity to new ideas, even if they come from a traditional adversary, weakens resistance to
domestic degradation.
Russia: challenger or insurrectionary?
We are now in a position to assess whether Putin really is out to subvert the West, as suggested by the US
intelligence community, much recent commentary and numerous strategic and doctrinal statements. The 'black legend'
charge underlies the Russiagate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US and other elections. Such
accusations are based on the view that a fundamental gulf has opened between the worldviews of the Russian leadership
and the Western community. There are some grounds to argue that this is the case, although this needs to be placed
into the broader framework of the evolution of Russian foreign policy since the end of the communist era and into the
theoretical context of how Russia sees the international system, as described earlier. Above all, as the historic
West moved into an era of expansive 'hegemonism', Russia (and China) were inevitably categorised as hostile nations.
They had the motive and heft to fight back. Lavrov (
2019
)
condemned the way that the 'rules-based order' substituted for international law, while the expanded institutions of
dominion encircled both countries. Challengers to the radicalised liberal world order become subversive by
definition.
Russia is a challenger power but it is not insurrectionary. In other words, it is far from the Soviet position of
seeking to advance the ideology of revolutionary socialism, of which 'active measures' were one of the most specific
manifestations. Further, Russia is not a revisionist power out to destroy the foundations of the international system
as it has taken shape since 1945, but it is neo-revisionist, challenging the practices of the US-led Atlantic order
within that system. As a conservative status quo Russia finds itself challenged by the radicalisation of the historic
West that it had hoped to transform at the end of the Cold War. Concurrently, Russia's identity as a great power
means that it resists the dominion element. It could live with the more modest liberal hegemony of the Cold War years
(and in fact, one of the layers of Russia's foreign policy identity still wants to join it), but the combination of
radicalised hegemonic universalism and the expansive logic of the power system rendered dominion unacceptable. Russia
condemns the Atlantic system for its revolutionary radicalism, manifested in what is perceives to be Western
revisionism. Russia thus finds itself divided from the historic West on a range of policy issues, but not ultimately
by commitment to the post-1945 international system. This is why Moscow welcomed Trump's post-Atlanticist
declarations, since he offered an alternative to the neo-conservative militarism and democratic interventionism of
the post-Cold War era. Shackled by Russiagate, Trump was not able to deliver much and in fact the sanctions regime
and other forms of neo-containment were intensified. In this context, six observations can help us examine the
problem of greater Russia and subversion.
First, it is misleading to see direct continuity between the USSR and Russia. Russia no longer embodies an
alternative ideology and is in fact a status quo power in both ideational and territorial terms. Russia is also
comparatively far less powerful. If at its peak in the early 1970s Soviet GDP reached 58 per cent that of the USA,
today Russia's at most is ten per cent of America's. Russia's defence spending in 2019 was the fourth largest in the
world, but at $65 billion this is less than a tenth of the USA at $732 billion (38 per cent of total global military
spending) and less than a quarter of China's $261 billion (SIPRI
2020
).
Cold War patterns have been restored, but the dynamics of this confrontation are very different even though some of
the procedural rituals of mutual excoriation have returned (Monaghan
2015
).
However, Russia does claim to represent an alternative to the historical West in three ways: as the defender of
conservative sovereign internationalism, where states interact on the basis of interests, although norms are far from
repudiated; as a socially conservative civilisation state with societal dynamics of its own (Coker
2019
;
Tsygankov
2016
);
and as a European power with a stake in creating some pan-continental framework, while at the same time advocating
the establishment of some sort of greater Eurasian unity.
All three open up lines of fracture that Russia seeks to exploit as a challenger but not as an insurrectionary power.
In particular, at the civilisational level the identification of the West with the Atlantic system is challenged.
This is a process that is advancing in any case within the Atlantic system, with the EU Global Strategy (
2016
)
talking of 'strategic autonomy'. The election of Trump later that year prompted Merkel (
2018
),
to argue that Europe could no longer rely on the USA to protect it. The French president Emmanuel Macron (
2019
)
argued that the corollary of the growing Atlantic divide was rapprochement with Russia. Critics argue that Russia
exploits this division and seeks to widen it, and in structural terms they are right. Any breach in the monist wall
will be welcomed by any leader in Moscow. It is along this line that charges of Russian subversion lie.
Second, unlike the former Soviet Union where policy was coordinated by the Central Committee and Politburo, today
Russia is far from monolithic. The layered phases mean that elements of at least four types of Russian engagement
with the West coexist and operate at the same time, although with different intensity. As noted, these range from
Atlanticist engagement, competitive coexistence, new realism to neo-revisionism. Commentary on contemporary Russia
assumes that it behaves like a unitary actor, with Putin serving as the unique demi-urge with nothing better to do
than ceaselessly monitor and manipulate global malign activities. This is indeed a manifestation of Western
'narcissism', and as Paul Robinson (
2020
)
asks 'where does all this nonsense about Putin wanting to destroy democracy come from? It certainly doesn't come from
anything he's ever said'. Russia is a vast and complex country with a vigorous public sphere with plenty of
relatively autonomous interests and actors. Institutionalised political pluralism is constrained, but not all roads
lead to the Kremlin (Sakwa
2020
).
For example, the national populist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the head of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has
hosted six conferences of far-right politicians since 1992, many attracted by the anti-Western language deployed by
much of the Russian elite. They provide an alternative narrative that often coincides with the Kremlin's positions,
but this does mean that there is an unbreakable alliance between the two (Moldovanov
2019
).
As the Reframing Russia team argue, not every outlandish comment in Russia's public sphere can be attributed to the
Kremlin's propaganda and disinformation department. Equally, we may add, not every oligarch is 'Putin's crony', bent
on advancing the Kremlin's malign agenda. This attribution and alignment fallacy is why, among other reasons,
sanctions against alleged regime-associated individuals will not achieve the desired effect of changing Russian
policy, since they are based on a flawed understanding of how Russia works, as well as the category error noted above
about the structural sources of Russian foreign policy.
Third, Russian behaviour is located in the matrix of the changing dynamics of the Atlantic power system, the liberal
international order and global power shifts (Karaganov (ed.)
2020
).
Russia is certainly alienated from a particular system that claims to be universal, as well as concerned about the
advance of a power system to its borders. The liberal international order may well have been 'doomed to fail' because
the key policies on which it is based are deeply flawed (Mearsheimer
2019
).
Spreading liberal democracy around the globe was benign in intent but disastrous in consequence (Walt
2019
).
The illusions generated by exaggerated claims of exceptionalism meant that the US 'squandered' Cold War victory
(Bacevich
2020
).
Russia's reaction is just one to an order whose response to the end of the Cold War was to exaggerate the dominion
factor and thus undermined its normative hegemony.
Fourth, Russia has returned as a power critical not only of the Atlantic hegemony but also of the values on which it
is based. At the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in June 2019 Putin talked of the failure of the
'Euro-Atlantic' economic model and argued that 'the existing model of economic relations is still in crisis and this
crisis is of a comprehensive nature' (Putin
2019b
).
Here and on other occasions he condemned the Atlantic powers' use of sanctions as a form of economic warfare. On the
eve of SPIEF on 6 June, Putin and China's leader, Xi Jinping, announced the upgrade of their relationship to a
'Comprehensive Partnership of Coordination for a New Era', accompanied by a joint statement on global strategic
stability (Xinhua
2019
).
There is a tension between the expansive liberal hegemony and countries and social movements who question the
identification of liberalism with order itself. Liberalism ultimately generates antinomies, which are not mere
correctible aberrations but systemic flaws of the liberal paradigm itself. These above all concern the question of
taming the power of capital and dealing with inequality and citizen marginalisation. Moscow does not identify itself
with these radical critiques, and its criticisms ultimately have a superficial and reversible character. Russia does
not stand outside the contradictions of contemporary liberalism, having entered its own liberal era at the end of the
Cold War in 1989. That layer in its identity is far from nugatory. Russia's experience of liberalism is distinctive,
characterising the 1990s as a time of liberal excess, yet the Putin system is permeated with neoliberal ideas and
even liberal aspirations. His critics in Russia from the left and right condemn the antinomies of the system, whereas
Putin simply points out the power and cultural contradictions of post-Cold War liberalism.
Fifth, the struggle for geopolitical pluralism after the neo-revisionist turn in 2012 is accompanied by a programme
of cultural conservatism, opening the door to alignment with Europe's national populists. In condemning what he took
to be the rampant social liberalism, accompanied by Merkel's 'welcome culture' in 2015 vis-à-vis the influx of
refugees, Putin (
2019a
)
sought to bolster support among social conservatives in Europe. As political and social liberals united against
Putinite Russia, it appeared that the impasse could only be broken by bolstering conservative (if not outright
reactionary) movements in Europe. A European change of heart would allow a rapprochement without Russia having to
change its domestic or foreign policies: 'It would be 1989 in reverse. This time it would not be Russia but Europe to
go through a traumatic conversion to foreign ideas' (Maçães
2019
).
Russia would be rescued from isolation and policy-makers could once again turn to the creation of a 'greater Europe',
reducing Russia's dependence on China and strengthening its position vis-à-vis the USA. This is the foundational
argument about Russia being out to subvert the West, and there is some truth in it -- but not in the linear way it is
usually interpreted. The alignment is situational and the geopolitics takes precedence over ideological alignment.
Sixth, as the Russiagate affair demonstrates, Russia acts as the scapegoat for problems generated by domestic
contradictions. In that case, Russian 'meddling' helped explain how the most improbable of candidates was able to win
against an experienced politician, Hillary Clinton, with a long record of public service, to pull off 'the greatest
political upset in American history' (Green
2017
,
p. 236). This impeded the Democratic Party from coming to terms with its own shortcomings, and the country from
addressing its ills. This perhaps is the greatest subversive effect achieved by Russia. As far as we know, this was
not achieved deliberately, although there is the view that Russia fed information 'to have the West believe what the
Kremlin wants the West to believe' (McCarthy
2019
,
p. 166). Even more cunningly, perhaps they were feeding misinformation to Steele to provoke a counter-intelligence
investigation that would incapacitate the Trump presidency and set the Democrats off on a wild goose chase that
prevented them from reforming and reconnecting with the real concerns of the American people. If the latter is the
case, then the operation was a brilliant success. The struggle against presumed Russian 'active measures' does more
damage to Western political institutions and the legitimacy of Western normative hegemony than the putative
subversive activity itself. The security services and spy agencies of course continue to battle it out behind the
scenes, but McCarthyism is as destructive today as it was in the 1950s.
Conclusion
Russia has returned as an international conservative power, but it is not a revisionist one, and even less is it out
to subvert the West. Russia certainly looks for allies where it can find them, especially if they advocate the
lifting of sanctions. When Macron (
2019
)
argued that it was time to bring Russia out of the cold, arguing that 'We cannot rebuild Europe without rebuilding a
connection with Russia', his comments were welcomed in Moscow, although tempered by a justifiable scepticism.
The
Putin elite had earlier welcomed Trump's election, but in practice relations deteriorated further. The foreign policy
establishment is deeply sceptical that the EU will be able to act with 'strategic autonomy'. Above all, Russo-Western
relations have entered into a statecraft 'security dilemma':
Currently, we are again faced with a situation in which mutual intentions are assessed by Washington and Moscow
as subversive, while each side considers the statecraft employed by the other side as effective enough to
achieve its malign goals. At the same time, each side is more sceptical about its own statecraft and appears
(or pretends) to be scrambling to catch up (Troitskiy
2019
).
In the nineteenth century, Russia became the 'gendarme' of Europe, and while Putin repudiates the country assuming
such a role again, Russia has undoubtedly returned as an international conservative power. Maintenance of a
specifically historically determined definition of the status quo is the essence of its neo-revisionism: a defence of
traditional ideas of state sovereignty and of an internationalism structured by commitment to the structures of the
international system as it took shape after 1945. Russia resents its perceived exclusion from the institutions of
Atlantic dominion (above all NATO); but is not out to destroy the international system in which this competition is
waged. Thus, Anton Shekhovtsov (
2017
)
is mistaken to argue that Russia's links to right-wing national populist movements are rooted in philosophical
anti-Westernism and an instinct to subvert the liberal democratic consensus in the West. In fact, the alignment is
situational and contingent on the impasse in Russo-Western relations and thus is susceptible to modification if the
situation changes. Moscow's readiness to embrace Trump in 2016 when he repeatedly argued that it made sense to 'get
on' with Russia indicates that Western overtures for improved relations would find the Kremlin ready to reciprocate.
In 2017 the Kremlin sent Washington various ideas on how to move out of the impasse in US-Russian relations, but
given the 'Russiagate' allegations, the White House was in no position to respond. The same applies when in 2019
Russia was invited to resume full voting rights in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which
the Kremlin embraced even though powerful domestic neo-traditionalist and Eurasianist voices counselled against.
Russia is not out to subvert the West but seeks to change it. For the defenders of monist enlargement, this is just
as bad. Resistance at home and abroad to the post-Cold War Western order has exposed unexpected fragilities and
insecurities, hence the turn to the language of 'resilience' (for example, EU Global Strategy
2016
).
Given its strategy of resistance, Russia in turn becomes the object against which resilience is tested, becoming one
of Federica Mogherini's 'five principles' (
2016
),
creating yet another barrier to normal diplomatic relations. In fact, the structural model outlined in this paper
suggests that Russia does not seek to create a greater Russia through subversion let alone physical enlargement,
although all leaders since the end of the Cold have tried to make the country a great power. This raises the
fundamental and still unresolved question: is Russia still interested in joining a transformed West? Or has it
realised that the only way to retain great power status and sovereign decision-making is to remain outside the West?
Joining the transformed West meant the attempt to create a 'greater Europe', what Gorbachev had earlier termed the
common European home. For defenders of the existing West, this is perceived as threatening its existing values, norms
and freedoms, and perhaps more importantly, also the existing hierarchy of international power; but for Russia, it is
a way out of the perceived geopolitical impasse and offers a common developmental strategy.
The West is faced by a choice 'between containment and engagement on mutually agreed terms' (Trenin
2016
,
p. 110). Incompatible understanding of the political character of the historical epoch provokes an intense barrage of
propaganda from all sides, with mutual allegations of political subversion and interference. The interaction of
hegemony and dominion on the one side and multiple layers of identity on the other provides fertile ground for
incomprehension and the attribution of sinister motives, provoking the statecraft 'security dilemma' identified
above. Russia maintains a neo-revisionist critique, but this does not mean repudiating improved relations with a
post-dominion West. The country increasingly pivoted to the East and strengthened its alignment with China, but this
does not mean that Russia seeks an irrevocable break with the West (Monaghan
2019
).
This is why it seeks improved relations with the EU and the USA if a satisfactory formula for restored contact can be
found. Moscow's support for insurgent populist movements in Europe and disruptive forces in America will always be
tempered by larger strategic concerns and are certainly not unequivocal. The greater Russia envisaged by the Kremlin
elite is one whose sovereignty is defended and whose great power status is recognised, but it is not one that seeks
more territory or to subvert the West and sow discord. The West can be trusted to do that without Russia's help. The
West's response to Russia's neo-revisionism has been neo-containment and counter-subversion strategies, but if the
analysis proposed in this article has any validity, then new forms of engagement may be a more productive course.
References
Abrams, S. 2016. Beyond Propaganda: Soviet Active Measures in Putin's Russia.
Connections:
The Quarterly Journal
15(1): 5–31.
Clunan, A.L. 2009.
The Social Construction of Russia's Resurgence: Aspirations,
Identity, and Security Interests
. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Horvath, R. 2011. Putin's "Preventive Counter-Revolution": Post-Soviet Authoritarianism and the Spectre of
Velvet Revolution.
Europe-Asia Studies
63(1): 1–25.
Intelligence Community Assessment. 2017. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI),
Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: Intelligence Community Assessment, ICA 2017
-
01D
,
6 January,
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
.
Krickovic, A., and Y. Weber. 2018. What Can Russia Teach Us about Change? Status-Seeking as a Catalyst for
Transformation in International Politics.
International Studies Review
20(2):
292–300.
Larson, D.W., and A. Shevchenko. 2003. Shortcut to Greatness: The New Thinking and the Revolution in Soviet
Foreign Policy.
International Organization
57(1): 77–109.
Makarychev, A., and G.S. Terry. 2020. An Estranged "Marriage of Convenience": Salvini, Putin, and the
Intricacies of Italian-Russian Relations.
Contemporary Italian Politics
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2019.1706926
.
Mueller III, R.S. 2019.
Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in
the 2016 Presidential Election
, 2 vols. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Sakwa, R. 2018a. The International System and the Clash of New World Orders. In
Multipolarity:
The Promise of Disharmony
, ed. Peter W. Schulze, 27–51. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
Wohlforth, W.C., and V. Zubok. 2017. An Abiding Antagonism: Realism, Idealism, and the Mirage of
Western-Russian Partnership after the Cold War.
International Politics
54(4):
405–419.
School of Politics and International Relations, Rutherford College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NX,
UK
Richard Sakwa
Corresponding author
Correspondence to
Richard
Sakwa
.
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share
information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners in accordance with our
Privacy
Statement
. You can manage your preferences in Manage Cookies.
OK
Manage Cookies
NoisyBaboon dontdenythe 7 minutes ago Both China and Russia can even bulldoze the US
embassies in their countries. But they will not do this because doing so is actually
NONSENSICAL. Let the foools enjoy themselves.
Craig
Murray lambasts a Russophobic media that celebrates a supposed cyber attack on UK vaccine research, ignores collapse
of key evidence of a "hack" and dabbles in dubious memorabilia.
The Guardian's
headquarters
in London.
(Bryantbob,
CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Andrew Marr, center, in 2014.
(
Financial
Times
, Flickr)
A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The latest is the accusation
that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination research. This is another totally evidence-free
accusation. But it misses the point anyway.
The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that there was an effort to
obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research
results secret rather than share them freely with the world scientific community.
As I have
reported
before
, the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common research and common vaccine
solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and
disadvantage the global poor).
What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the fact that Russia had
just
bought
the very research specified. You don't steal things you already own.
Evidence of CIA Hacks
If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with certainty the whereabouts of
hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to India, Australia or South Africa depending on where
I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging broadcasting restrictions.
More pertinently,
WikiLeaks'
Vault
7 release of CIA material showed the
specific
programs
for the CIA in how to leave clues to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable
evidence that the CIA do computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of
Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the mainstream media knows to
be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.
Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that former Labour Party Leader
Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen
by an evil Russian who left his name of Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this
narrative. Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking Corbyn.
Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared to open up the NHS
"market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on pharmaceutical prices, I should be very
grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who
leaked evidence of just how systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.
But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted insider, and I very much
suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted insider.
When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the whistle.
Crowdstrike's Quiet Admission
Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry presenting at the International Security Forum in Vancouver, 2009.
(Hubert K, Flickr)
If you can delay even the most startling truth for several years, it loses much of its political bite. If you can
announce it during a health crisis, it loses still more. The world therefore did not shudder to a halt when the CEO
of Crowdstrike admitted there had never been any evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC servers.
You will recall the near incredible fact that, even through the Mueller investigation, the FBI never inspected the
DNC servers themselves but simply relied on a technical report from Crowdstrike, the Hillary Clinton-related IT
security consultant for the DNC.
It is now known for sure that Crowdstrike had been peddling fake news for Hillary. In fact, Crowdstrike had no record
of any internet hack at all. There was no evidence of the email material being exported over the internet. What they
claimed did exist was evidence that the files had been organized preparatory to export.
Remember the entire "Russian hacking" story was based ONLY on Crowdstrike's say so. There is literally no other
evidence of Russian involvement in the DNC emails, which is unsurprising as I have been telling you for four years
from my own direct sources that Russia was not involved. Yet finally declassified congressional testimony revealed
that Shawn Henry stated on oath that "we did not have concrete evidence" and "There's circumstantial evidence , but
no evidence they were actually exfiltrated."
This testimony fits with what I was told by Bill Binney, a former technical director of the National Security Agency
(NSA), who told me that it was impossible that any large amount of data should be moved across the internet from the
USA, without the NSA both seeing it happen in real time and recording it. If there really had been a Russian hack,
the NSA would have been able to give the time of it to a millisecond.
That the NSA did not have that information was proof the transfer had never happened, according to Binney. What had
happened, Binney deduced, was that the files had been downloaded locally, probably to a thumb drive.
Bill Binney.
(Miquel
Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)
So arguably the biggest news story of the past four years -- the claim that Putin effectively interfered to have
Donald Trump elected U.S. president -- turns out indeed to be utterly baseless. Has the mainstream media, acting on
security service behest, done anything to row back from the false impression it created? No it has doubled down.
Anti-Russia Theme
The "Russian hacking" theme keeps being brought back related to whatever is the big story of the day.
Then we have those continual security service briefings. Two weeks ago we had unnamed security service sources
telling
The New York Times
that
Russia had offered the Taliban
a
bounty
for killing American soldiers. This information had allegedly come from interrogation of captured Taliban
in Afghanistan, which would almost certainly mean it was obtained under torture.
It is a wildly improbable tale. The Afghans have never needed that kind of incentivization to kill foreign invaders
on their soil. It is also a fascinating throwback of an accusation – the British did indeed offer Afghans money for,
quite literally, the heads of Afghan resistance leaders during the first Afghan War in 1841, as I detail in my
book "Sikunder Burnes."
Taliban in Herat, Afghanistan, 2001.
(Wikipedia)
You do not have to look back that far to realize the gross hypocrisy of the accusation. In the 1980s the West was
quite openly paying, arming and training the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden – to kill Russian and other Soviet
conscripts in their thousands. That is just one example of the hypocrisy.
The U.S. and U.K. security services both cultivate and bribe senior political and other figures abroad in order to
influence policy all of the time. We work to manipulate the result of elections -- I have done it personally in my
former role as a U.K. diplomat. A great deal of the behavior over which Western governments and media are creating
this new McCarthyite anti-Russian witch hunt, is standard diplomatic practice.
My own view is that there are malign Russian forces attempting to act on government in the U.K. and the USA, but they
are not nearly as powerful as the malign British and American forces acting on their own governments.
The truth is that the world is under the increasing control of a global elite of billionaires, to whom nationality is
irrelevant and national governments are tools to be manipulated. Russia is not attempting to buy corrupt political
influence on behalf of the Russian people, who are decent folk every bit as exploited by the ultra-wealthy as you or
I. Russian billionaires are, just like billionaires everywhere, attempting to game global political, commercial and
social structures in their personal interest.
The other extreme point of hypocrisy lies in human rights. So many Western media commentators are suddenly interested
in China and the Uighurs or in restrictions on the LBGT community in Russia, yet turn a completely blind eye to the
abuse committed by Western "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
As somebody who was campaigning about the human rights of both the Uighurs and of gay people in Russia a good decade
before it became fashionable, I am disgusted by how the term "human rights" has become weaponized for deployment only
against those countries designated as enemy by the Western elite.
Finally, do not forget that there is a massive armaments industry and a massive security industry all dependent on
having an "enemy." Powerful people make money from this Russophobia. Expect much more of it. There is money in a Cold
War.
Craig
Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002
to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
On the core subject
here: By necessity, a pandemic requires a cooperative international response. Only one country has
refused to do so: The US. In their supreme arrogance, our ruling class lost track the fact that the US
needs the rest of the world, not the other way way around.
Zalamander
,
July 22, 2020 at 19:12
One by one the
so-called Russiagate "evidence" have collapsed. The fake Steele Dossier, "Russian spy" Joseph Mifsud who
is actually a self-admitted member of the Clinton Foundation, Roger Stone's non-existant Wikileaks
contacts, Russian Afgan bounties, etc. But the neoliberal mainstream media still presents these as
"facts" with no retractions. This is not journalism, its disinformation designed to distract the American
public from the failures of capitalism.
Peter Janney
July 22, 2020 at 06:55
Craig Murray succinctly (and very beautifully) gives us a REAL glimpse of what great journalism really
looks like.
-- --
Perhaps it is great writing, but is it journalism?
Some people in
National Union of Journalists (a trade union in UK) ponder that question for many months, unable to
decide if Craig should be allowed to join or not. If he is neither a flack nor a hack, who kind of
journalist is he? (More details at Craig Murray's web site).
Journalism is
printing what someone else does not want printed.
Everything else is public relations.
-- George Orwell
rosemerry
,
July 22, 2020 at 16:42
All of the Russophobia
and lies serve the rulers of the USA?UK and their poodles well. The whole year of Skripal mania started
by Theresa May and joined in by Trump, with the media such as the Guardian's scurrilous Luke Harding
providing fantasy "evidence" and the whole story conveniently disappearing, like the Skripals, when other
"news" arrived, has no benefit to seekers of even the minimum of truth.
DH Fabian
,
July 22, 2020 at 19:46
Certainly, and this
is key to understanding the current situation. What we're seeing now is the final stages of the
long-sinking West -- those once-mighty partners of empire, the UK/US. This descent appears to have
begun with the Reagan/Thatcher years, and is now in the final stages. We've seen a rather dramatic
growth of psychosis in the political-media-public discussion over the past 3-4 years, driven by an
irrational obsession with China/Russia. (Russia and China both quietly observe, prepared to respond if
attacked.) There really isn't anything we can do about it, beyond acknowledging it as what it is.
Very good, but needs
to be supplemented by reference to the interview with NIH Director Franaic Collins on last Sunday's Meet
the Press. When host Chuck Todd asked Collins about Russian hacking of US vaccine research Collins smiled
and answered by pointing out that the research wasn't intended to be secret and that it was all to be
published for "transparency." Todd looked disappointed, mumbled, "OK," and changed the subject. No media
have reported this exchange, which is retrievable on the internet.
JOHN CHUCKMAN
,
July 22, 2020 at 10:58
Brilliant, but that's
what one expects of Craig Murray.
Craig Murray
succinctly (and very beautifully) gives us a REAL glimpse of what great journalism really looks like. I
commend his courage for never bending in the face of all the bullshit we have had to tolerate from the
mainstream media. Thank you, thank you dear Craig . . .
geeyp
,
July 22, 2020 at 00:10
Regarding Craig's last
summing up paragraph, all one need do to confirm that is read the previous article of Michael T. Klare.
Roger Thornhill 2 hours ago If I recall correctly, Obama gave the Russians all of 48 hours
to leave their consulate in San Francisco, which had been occupied since the 19th Century. This
was around Christmas time in 2016. So I don't find this particularly surprising. Two days to
have the diplomats, staff, and families completely out of the country.
The Government of China has ordered the USA to close its consulate in Chengdu within 72
hours, in the widely-expected tit-for-tat response to the American order that the Chinese
consulate in Houston be closed.
"The immediate effect of the two consulates' closures is expected to be minimal,
especially since the visas they normally process have become moot at a time when travel has
been severely limited by the coronavirus pandemic.
But the closure of the consulate in Chengdu, in Sichuan Province, the westernmost of
the five American consulates in mainland China, deprives the United States in a city that is
a hub for China's commercial expansion across Central Asia. Chengdu is also its most valuable
diplomatic outpost for gathering information on Xinjiang and Tibet, the two sometimes-restive
regions in China's far west."
Pompeo blabbered in a speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library that "If we bend
the knee now, our children's children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party,
whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world General Secretary Xi is not
destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever unless we allow it." Chinese
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying compared him to 'an ant trying to shake a
tree'.
I love the way the USA starts shit and then characterizes its rationale for continuing to
escalate as the need to show it is not 'bending the knee'. Like backing away from something
you started is submission to pressure. So you need to just keep cranking the level right the
fuck up.
At this time of all times, when the world is staggering from the shattering effects of the
Coronavirus pandemic, it would be sensible for nations to pull together in order to devise
policies and practicalities to counter and defeat the devastation that is taking place and
seems likely to increase. Now is the time for cooperation, compromise and mutual assistance in
all spheres of medical research and in devising protective measures which can be emplaced and
enforced with the minimum of dislocation. Internationalism should be the norm, and the best
brains in the world should be in harness, from Beijing to Boston and beyond.
But they're not, because there are some countries that are resolutely resisting cooperation
in the fight against world disaster and choosing to focus on confrontation. And, naturally,
they are the ones that are suffering most. As of July 23 ,
the highest numbers of deaths in the Americas were the United States with 146,200 and Brazil
scoring 82,890, while in Europe the United Kingdom had a depressing 45,501. These are the
countries whose "leaders" (for want of a better word to describe erratic bunglers at the head
of government) have failed utterly to cope with the national aspects of the pandemic
crisis.
Not only this, but concurrent with their exhibitions of domestic ineptitude, Presidents
Trump and Bolsonaro and Prime Minister Johnson have ignored or even insulted and aggressively
confronted nations with whom they should be most energetically working to help their own
citizens return to leading normal lives.
There are two main countries with which the US, Brazil and Britain should be energetically
cooperating in the campaign to alleviate and eventually overcome the virus : China and Russia.
But forget it, because, for example, one of America's main priorities, as
reported by Stars and Stripes , is the rebuilding and extension of the Campia Turzii
air base in Romania for use by US strike aircraft. This is to cost 130 million dollars for "the
biggest overseas military construction project under the Pentagon's European Deterrence
Initiative, which was initiated in June 2014." The build up of US-Nato forces continues
unabated around the Black Sea and along the length of Russia's borders.
Admiral James Foggo, recently departed head of U.S. Naval Forces Europe,
declared that the U.S. "bottom line" is "mutual interest" with Ukraine, which is "why we
regularly operate in the Black Sea. Both U.S. and NATO forces routinely operate there to send a
message that we will uphold international law and norms. Our collective efforts will lead to a
better and safer Ukraine, which means a better and safer Black Sea for all of us." In the
Pentagon's playbook, US security is enhanced when it threatens other countries by indulging in
massive military build-ups and confrontational military maneuvers round their borders. Foggo's
replacement, Admiral Robert Burke, assumed command of Naval Forces Europe and NATO's Joint
Forces Command on July 17 and promptly
declared that China and Russia pose "overt challenges to the free and open international
order."
The Coronavirus campaign takes a back seat, where US power-projection is concerned. The
Pentagon has over 50,000 troops stationed in Japan, of whom half are in bases on the island of
Okinawa which, as CBS News
noted on July 16, "sits closer to Taiwan's capital, Taipei, than it does to Tokyo. It's a
pivotal foothold for Washington, both to protect Asian allies including Japan, South Korea and
Taiwan, and to project U.S. power and be able to react to increasingly aggressive military
moves by China in the region, and the ever-present threat from North Korea." But this pivotal
foothold for US power projection is experiencing "the biggest coronavirus outbreak within the U.S.
military anywhere in the world . . . [on July 16] U.S. Forces Japan confirmed another 36
infections among troops on Okinawa, bringing the total to at least 136 since the U.S. military
reported its first cases there last week." The people of Okinawa are understandably extremely
worried about the threat from the virus brought to their home by US military personnel -- but
the Pentagon and the Washington establishment are prioritizing their activities in the region
by indulging in confrontational antics in the South China Sea, where they have been
carrying out massive military maneuvers involving two aircraft carrier strike groups and
nuclear bombers in order to continue threatening China. (On July 17 a further two B-1 nuclear
bombers were
deployed to the U.S. colony of Guam in the western Pacific to carry out "strategic
deterrence missions to reinforce the rules-based international order in the region.")
In the eyes of the Trump Administration, confrontation with China is preferable to
cooperation in trying to combat the pandemic, and this was made abundantly clear during a
bizarre Trump
tirade in the Rose Garden on July 14 when he announced that "We hold China fully
responsible for concealing the virus and unleashing it upon the world. They could've stopped
it. They should've stopped it. It would've been very easy to do at the source when it
happened." This palpable nonsense is U.S. official policy, and a most troubling indicator of
belligerence.
Britain's Boris Johnson once described himself as
a 'Sinophile' but has joined with Trump in trying to confront China over Hong Kong and
obeyed his orders to ban the Chinese firm Huawei from business in the UK. Further, he is
enthusiastically embracing the current propaganda campaign against Russia. Instead of
cooperating with Beijing and Moscow in trying to develop a counter-virus vaccine, London joined
Washington in proclaiming, in spite of there being no evidence whatever, the bogus
allegation that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. While this
nonsense was being
refuted , there came yet another accusation from London which at first seemed extremely
serious.
It was
claimed by the usual anonymous sources that, as
reported by Reuters, "Britain, Canada and the United States said . . . that hackers backed
by the Russian state were trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine and treatment research from academic
and pharmaceutical institutions." Britain's foreign minister promptly declared that "Russian
intelligence services are targeting those working to combat the coronavirus pandemic," but when
this was realized to be an absurd claim, even the New York Times had to
state on July 17 that "Russian drugmaker R-Pharm has signed a deal with AstraZeneca for it
to manufacture a COVID-19 vaccine being developed by the British pharmaceuticals giant and
Oxford University." AstraZeneca's international headquarters in in Cambridge, England, and it
has research laboratories in the U.S. State of Maryland and in Sweden.
This was a pretty amateur propaganda operation, but in spite of the fact that the
allegations were demonstrably ridiculous there is no doubt the story had the intended outcome
and that the anti-Russia fire was stoked effectively. The rift between the West and Russia and
China is being deliberately widened, and a New Cold War is breaking out, with the U.S. and
Britain playing down their domestic calamities and choosing international confrontation in
preference to cooperation.
Trump and Johnson are not serving the best interests of their own citizens and are harming
the entire world by their belligerent posture. There are rocks ahead. Maybe nuclear ones.
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: BRIAN CLOUGHLEY
Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay
sur Cure, France.
News
/
Politics
Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination
Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM
[ Last
Update: Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM ]
Members of the Iraqi honor guard walk past a huge portrait of Iran's late top general Qassem Soleimani (L) and Iraqi
commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad airport last month, during a memorial
service held in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone on February 11, 2020. (Photo by AFP)
Iran's top security
official
says
harsher
revenge
awaits the perpetrators of the attack that killed senior Iranian anti-terrorism commander
Lieutenant
General Qassem Soleimani and his companions.
In a
post
on his Twitter
page on Wednesday, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani said that US
President Donald Trump had admitted that the American, upon his direct order, committed the crime of assassinating General
Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and
Abu
Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) counter-terrorism force, who were two
prominent figures of the anti-terrorism campaign.
"The two Iranian and Iraqi nations are avengers of blood of these martyrs
and
will not rest until they punish the perpetrators," read part of the tweet.
"Harsher revenge is one the way," it concluded.
The two commanders and a number of their companions were assassinated in a US airstrike near Baghdad airport on January 3,
as General Soleimani was on an official visit to the Iraqi capital.
Both commanders were extremely popular because of the key role they played in eliminating the US-sponsored Daesh terrorist
group in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.
In retaliation for the attack, the IRGC fired volleys of ballistic missiles a US base in Iraq on January 8. According to
the US Defense Department, more than 100 American forces suffered "traumatic brain injuries" during the counterstrike. The
IRGC, however, says Washington uses the term to mask the number of the Americans, who perished during the retaliation.
Iran has also issued an arrest warrant and asked Interpol for help in detaining Trump, who ordered the assassination, and
several other US military and political leaders behind the strike.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday Iran will never forget Washington's
assassination of General Soleimani and will definitely deliver a "counterblow" to the United States.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran will never forget this issue and will definitely deal the counterblow to the Americans,"
Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.
"They killed your guest at your own home and unequivocally admitted the atrocity. This is no small matter," Ayatollah
Khamenei told the Iraqi premier.
A UN special rapporteur says
has
condemned the US assassination and said Washington has put the world at unprecedented peril with its murder of Iran's top
anti-terror commander.
Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has also warned that it is high
time the international community broke its silence on Washington's drone-powered unlawful killings.
Press TV's website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
RUSSIA INC. Despite everything, Russia's FOREX and gold kitty keeps growing – now
worth
569 billion USD . Of course, quite a bit is the increase in the price of its gold holdings
(about 2300 tonnes ).
NYT BIAS. Historian David Foglesong has
written a piece about the long-time
Russophobia of the NYT: "propaganda is not necessarily untrue. It is a method of emphasis
calling attention to that which it is desired to have known". It is desired to have
known . Free media indeed.
WESTERN VALUES™. Today's bloviation: "America is fundamentally good... America,
uniquely among nations, has the capacity to champion human rights and the dignity of every
human being made in the image of God, no matter their nation... And to the world, America is
the star that shines brightest when the night is the darkest...". And so on . Does
any other country said this sort of thing routinely?
AMERICA-HYSTERICA.
All lies. "The statements by Mr. Strzok question the entire premise of the FBI's
investigation of the Trump Campaign and make it even more outrageous that the Mueller team
continued this investigation for almost two and a half years. Moreover, the statements by
Strzok raise troubling questions as to whether the FBI was impermissibly unmasking and
analyzing intelligence gathered on U.S. persons."
O MG you guys Putin hacked our coronavirus vaccine secrets!
Today mainstream media is reporting what is arguably the single dumbest Russiavape story of
all time, against some very stiff competition.
"Russian hackers are targeting health care organizations in the West in an attempt to steal
coronavirus vaccine research, the U.S. and Britain said," reportsThe New York
Times .
"Hackers backed by the Russian state are trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine and treatment
research from academic and pharmaceutical institutions around the world, Britain's National
Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) said on Thursday,"
Reuters reports .
"Russian news agency RIA cited spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying the Kremlin rejected
London's allegations, which he said were not backed by proper evidence," adds Reuters.
First of all, how many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about
Russian nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media? Since
2016 it's been wall-to-wall narrative about evil things Russia is doing to the empire-like
cluster of allies loosely centralized around the United States, and they all just happen to be
things for which nobody can actually provide hard verifiable evidence.
Ever since the shady
cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike
admitted that it never actually saw hard proof of Russia hacking the DNC servers, the
already shaky and always unsubstantiated narrative that Russian hackers interfered in the
U.S. presidential election in 2016 has been on thinner ice than ever. Yet because the mass
media converged on this narrative and
repeated it as fact over and over they've been able to get the mainstream headline-skimming
public to accept it as an established truth, priming them for an increasingly idiotic litany of
completely unsubstantiated Russia scandals, culminating most recently in the entirely
debunked claim that Russia paid Taliban-linked fighters to kill coalition forces in
Afghanistan.
Secondly, the news story doesn't even claim that these supposed Russian hackers even
succeeded in doing whatever they were supposed to have been doing in this supposed
cyberattack.
"Officials have not commented on whether the attacks were successful but also have not ruled
out that this is the case," Wired reports
.
Thirdly, this is a "vaccine" which does not even exist at this point in time, and the
research which was supposedly hacked may never lead to one. Meanwhile, Sechenov First Moscow
State Medical University
reports that it has "successfully completed tests on volunteers of the world's first
vaccine against coronavirus," in Russia.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, how obnoxious and idiotic is it that coronavirus
vaccine "secrets" are even a thing?? This is a global pandemic which is hurting all of us;
scientists should be free to collaborate with other scientists anywhere in the world to find a
solution to this problem. Nobody has any business keeping "secrets" from the world about this
virus or any possible vaccine or treatment. If they do, anyone in the world is well within
their rights to pry those secrets away from them.
This intensely stupid story comes out at the same time British media are blaring stories about Russian
interference in the 2019 election, which if you actually listen carefully to the claims
being advanced amounts to literally nothing more than the assertion that Russians talked about
already leaked documents pertaining to the U.K.'s healthcare system on the internet.
"Russian actors 'sought to interfere' in last winter's general election by amplifying an
illicitly acquired NHS dossier that was seized upon by Labour during the campaign, the foreign
secretary has said,"
reports The Guardian .
"Amplifying." That's literally all there is to this story. As we learned with the ridiculous U.S. Russiagate narrative , with such
allegations, Russia "amplifying" something can mean anything from RT reporting on a
major news story to a Twitter account from St. Petersburg sharing an article from The
Washington Post . Even the
foreign secretary's claim itself explicitly admits that "there is no evidence of a broad
spectrum Russian campaign against the General Election."
"The statement is so foggy and contradictory that it is almost impossible to understand it,"
responded Russia's foreign
ministry to the allegations. "If it's inappropriate to say something then don't say it. If you
say it, produce the facts."
Instead of producing facts you've got the Murdoch press pestering Jeremy Corbyn, the
Labour Party candidate, on his doorstep over this ridiculous non-story, and popular
right-wing outlets like Guido Fawkes running the blatantly false
headline "Government Confirms Corbyn Used Russian-Hacked Documents in 2019 Election." The
completely bogus allegation that the NHS documents came to Jeremy Corbyn by way of Russian
hackers is not made anywhere in the article itself, but for the headline-skimming majority this
makes no difference. And headline skimmers get as many votes as people who read and think
critically.
All this new Cold War Russia hysteria is turning people's brains into guacamole. We've got
to find a way to snap out of the propaganda trance so we can start creating a world that is
based on truth and a desire for peace.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Putin Apologist , July 19, 2020 at 17:50
"How many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about Russian
nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media?"
The Answer is none. Nobody (well, nobody with a brain) believes anything the "corporate
mass media" says about Russia, or China, Iran or Venezuela or anything else for that
matter.
James Keye , July 19, 2020 at 10:26
Guy , July 18, 2020 at 15:32
But,but, but we never heard the words "highly likely" ,they must be slipping.LOL
DH Fabian , July 18, 2020 at 13:41
The Democrat right wing are robotically persistent, and count on the ignorance of their
base. By late last year, we saw them begin setting the stage to blame-away an expected 2020
defeat on Russia. Once again, proving that today's Democrats are just too dangerous to vote
for. Donald Trump owes a great deal to his "friends across the aisle."
There's no way the trillion in T-bills will be seized/defaulted/whatever. The damage to US
credibility will be unrecoverable.
It is certainly crazy time. AG Barr threatened major US corporations Disney & Apple
with having to register as "foreign agents" due to their Chinese investments. Earlier in the
year, the FBI and Congress decided to destroy the career of one of America's top scientists
over failure to submit relatively inconsequential paperwork. These are the types of things
which should result in a determined pushback against an intrusive national security state,
but the balance of power in USA may have flipped.
Cutting the defense budget by a modest 10 percent could provide billions to combat the pandemic, provide health
care and take care of neglected communities.
Capitol Souvenir Company, Inc. via Boston Public Library
Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent from Vermont.
▶ Click here for the
conservative
case
for reducing defense spending.
Fifty-three years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged all of us to fight against three major evils: "the
evil of racism, the evil of poverty and the evil of war." If there was ever a moment in American history when we
needed to respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand a "radical revolution of values," now is that
time.
Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, defeating the deadliest pandemic in more than
a hundred years, or putting an end to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, now is the time to
fundamentally change our national priorities.
Sadly, instead of responding to any of these unprecedented crises, the Republican Senate is on a two-week
vacation. When it comes back, its first order of business will be to pass a military spending authorization that
would give the bloated Pentagon $740 billion -- an increase of more than $100 billion since Donald Trump became
president.
Let's be clear: As coronavirus
infections
,
hospitalizations
and
deaths
are
surging to record levels in states across America, and the lifeline of unemployment benefits keeping 30 million
people afloat expires at the end of the month, the Republican Senate has decided to provide more funding for the
Pentagon than the next 11 nations' military budgets combined.
Under this legislation, over half of our discretionary budget would go to the Department of Defense at a time when
tens of millions of Americans are food insecure and over a half-million Americans are sleeping out on the street.
After adjusting for inflation, this bill would spend more money on the Pentagon than we did during the height of
the Vietnam War even as up to 22 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes and
health
workers
are still forced to reuse masks, gloves and gowns.
Moreover, this extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only
agency of our federal government that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are
making enormous profits while paying their CEOs outrageous compensation packages, and when the so-called War on
Terror will cost some $6 trillion.
Let us never forget what Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former four-star general, said in 1953:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
What Eisenhower said was true 67 years ago, and it is true today.
If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything it is that national security means a lot
more than building bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction. National security also
means doing everything we can to improve the lives of tens of millions of people living in desperation who have
been abandoned by our government decade after decade.
That is why I have introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate will be voting on
during the week of July 20th, and the House will follow suit with a companion effort led by Representatives Mark
Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Our amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use
that $74 billion in savings to invest in communities that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass
incarceration, decades of neglect and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every state in the country would be able to use these funds
to create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public
hospitals, libraries and clean drinking water facilities. These communities would also receive federal funding to
hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents and offer free tuition at
public colleges, universities or trade schools.
This amendment gives my Senate colleagues a fundamental choice to make. They can vote to spend more money on
endless wars in the Middle East while failing to provide economic security to millions of people in the United
States. Or they can vote to spend less money on nuclear weapons and cost overruns, and more to rebuild struggling
communities in their home states.
In Dr. King's 1967 speech, he warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
He was right. At a time when half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, when over 40 million
Americans are living in poverty, and when 87 million lack health insurance or are underinsured, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and when
millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death.
At a time when we have no national testing program, no adequate production of protective gear and no commitment to
a free vaccine, while remaining the only major country where infections spiral out of control, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when over 60,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to get to a doctor on time, and one
out of five Americans can't afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, we are approaching spiritual
death.
Now, at this unprecedented moment in American history, it is time to rethink what we value as a society and to
fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing that
money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let's get it done.
MOST READ
The Congress is serving the interests of the US Oligarchy, at home and abroad. The
strategy is simple: keep allies/vassals in obeisance and non-competitive and destroy
polities that do not subject themselves to a similar system (which ends up to become
subservient to the US interests anyways, in the long run). Thus, all enemies are polities
were Oligarchy doesn't run the roster, and are semi-socialist / socialist countries:
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in the past Iraq.
Fully fledged democracies, that truly enact the will of the people, would not do
something like this.
For those too young to remember the horrible American war on Yugoslavia in 1999, or
those who have forgot, or were misled with lies about Kosovo, here is a quick summary:
This is a very accurate and honest report what { NATO } the North American Terrorist
Organization did to Yugoslavia . If you Americans wish to know what kind of global
government you are promoting . You only have to find the actual transcripts of Milosevic's
trail . Don't read or listen to any fake news of the trail . You must read the trail
transcripts and judge for yourself The butcher of Balkans has kind of been exonerated after
his death . The world court is something to be very afraid of not at all a instrument of
justice .But the trail transcripts are about 5000 pages so you will have to work to find
out the truth .
WW2 and it's depiction in various films and TV programs has had an unexpected effect on
the military psyche. The US believes it won the war on it's own and the troops came home as
heroes. This is the expectation of the US military even today, unable to accept that it can
be defeated. "Thank you for your service" is a given whatever crimes had been committed
abroad on the innocent who had done them no harm whatsoever. The ICC is opposed on the
theory that US troops cannot commit torture or massacres.
The Joke is that the US has not one a war since WWII, except maybe Granada. As for War
Crimes, the Current President himself committed a War Crime, He gave a Pardon to a
Convicted War Criminal, that is actually breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is US
Treaty Law and as such equal to the Constitution itself in importance. Schedule 4 Article
146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide
effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the
grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged
to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring
such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it
prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons
over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting
Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all
acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches
defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial
and defense, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those
following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August
12, 1949.
Article 147
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of
the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present
Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling
a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a
protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present
Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Article 148
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High
Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party
in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
The President has by absolving the Navy Seal of the Liability, Absolved the United
States of the War Crime also, Now I understand that we will hear arguments here of the
Presidents ability to Pardon, but take this as a given, there is no way that During the
Nuremberg Trials the Prosecution of those War Crimes would have accepted the argument that
the Head of State of Germany (Hitler) had the blanket Authority to Pardon German War
Criminals. as such and this is why this was placed in the Geneva Conventions the very act
of Absolving a War Crime is itself a War Crime!
We could care less what the ICC is opposed to. We are not subject to the ICC or
international law. We can enforce it if needed but do not have to abide by it.
The micrograins of ICC jurisdiction and validity require a sharper legal mind than mine
to sift through. But the debate is revelatory of something else -
In general, the current domestic ICC debate reveals part of the true nature of the US
(helped in no small part by the hamfisted and transparent vulgarity of President Trump):
that we are in fact the rogue state that we accuse everyone else in the world of being.
If we are who we say we are we should be straight up supporting the ICC, helping to fund
it and increase its reach and investigative power. Far better than any military
intervention to deal with the truly bad actors in the world would be a legal intervention.
The idea that vicious and violent despots should run scared when they travel or otherwise
face arrest and extradition is exactly right.
But we're not. Why? The answer is obvious at this point - because we have powerful
players in our midst that would face that arrest. And should face that arrest.
By a vote of 324-93 ,
the House of Representatives soundly defeated an
amendment to reduce Pentagon authorized spending levels by 10%. The amendment does not
specify what to cut, only that Congress make across-the-board reductions. The amendment to
the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). No
Republicans voted for the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.
Earlier, the House defeated an amendment to stop the Pentagon's submission of an unfunded
priorities list. Each year, after the Pentagon's budget request is submitted to Congress, the
military services send a separate "wish list," termed "unfunded priorities." This list
includes requests for programs that the military would like Congress to fund, in case they
decide to add more money to the Pentagon's proposed budget.
This article was written while observing the voting on CSPAN. The House Clerk has not
yet posted the roll-call vote. Additional information will be added to the article when
available.
Move comes as Libya gov't and Turkey demand an end of foreign intervention in support of
commander Khalifa Haftar.
####
I suspect In'Sultin Erd O'Grand is a mole of the garden kind. He goes about digging
one hole for himself after another. If he keeps this up, all the holes will merge in to
one and he will disappear! It would give the West a chance to have someone running Turkey
with a more reliably western perspective though I think it is clear that whatever comes next,
Turkey will not allow itself to be treated as a western annex and pawn.
Neocon presstitutes like Appelbaum (actually a well paid MIC lobbyist in disguise) and MI6
connected criminals like like Browder are the feature of the US political landscape, not a bug. I
actually did laugh at Browder's piece on the BBC though, were a money launderer and tax evader
who left his book keeper to die in a Russian prison telling us we shouldn't trust the
Russians.
US economic problems are greatly enhanced by the tremendous amount of defense expenditures
(outspending the combined next seven leading countries in arms expenditures) and tax payer's
money being wasted on paranoid obsessions likes what's mentioned here: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2020/07/a-visit-from-the-fbi/
The article mentions Steele as a discredited participant but what about Applebaum, or are we
to forget how her Polish husband was demoted by his own government for concocting a story about
Putin offering to split Ukraine with Poland, at an alleged meeting that he was shown to have
never attended. Poland no doubt sanctioned him for fabricating such an easily disproved event,
certainly not out of any such notion as a search for truth.
That said, not having invited even a token moderate voice to this august 'panel of experts'
speaks volumes about either the ignorance, the incompetence, the perfidy or just plain 'We
don't really care what you think. We've done our duty' arrogance of the report's authors.
CAIRO (AP) -- Egypt's parliament on Monday authorized the deployment of troops outside the
country, a move that could escalate the spiraling war in Libya after the president threatened
military action against Turkish-backed forces in the oil-rich country.
A troop deployment in Libya could bring Egypt and Turkey, close U.S. allies that support
rival sides in the conflict, into direct confrontation.
"... I seem to recall William "Bill" Browder, AKA "Putin's Number-One Enemy" was briefly detained in Spain on an Interpol warrant or something. ..."
"... And courtesy of today's Independent, the words of that most noble and trustworthy lying cnut Browder as regards "Russian Meddling" in the affairs of my pathetic Motherland: ..."
"... Spoken by a person who changed his citizenship so as to dodge paying tax. What a slimy toad Browder is! ..."
"... Of course, though, Browder is not an oligarch himself. He's an 'investment firm boss'. And naturally he does not himself engage 'basically in intelligence and influence work'. He only single-handedly managed to get the Magnitsky Act on the books, where it will stay forever although the German press is belatedly owning up that Magnitsky was not the pink-faced legal cherub Browder portrayed. If that's not influence, I don't know what is. ..."
"... The west is so fixed on 'getting' Russia that it must simply make things up when it cannot find real reasons for its hatred. You could say that the USA with its marble-this-and-that secret algorithms is making up online traffic and attributing it to Russia, but I'm pretty sure other western countries are not complete oafs themselves in the computer world, and if you know what you're looking for I'm sure that their analysts can separate fantasy-land gifts like 'Kremlin Assassination Plan for American Soldiers' from actual Russian plans. ..."
I think the only Spanish connection it is a convenient location for whatever they were
up to off-shore. We are expected to trust the intelligence services word that
Litvinenko/Skripal/whomever were investigating the 'Russian Mafia' in Spain, so in reality it
could be anything.
What we do know is that Spain signed an updated SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) with the
United States in 2012 (Second Amendment) and 2015 (Third Amendment). Why should this be
linked to UK Russian assets like Litvinenko & Skripal? Because we know that when the
United States wants to do something off the books , i.e. that is techincally illegal
for their citizens to do on their soil, the UK more than happy to oblige (sic. the choice of
Steele's Orbis company in the UK to peddle lies for the Democrats to say that they only lost
the US election because of someone else. Everybody else's fault but not theirs.
And courtesy of today's Independent, the words of that most noble and trustworthy lying
cnut Browder as regards "Russian Meddling" in the affairs of my pathetic Motherland:
Will the Russia report 'follow the money'?
Russia is operating in the UK through "oligarchs" who "spend their money on highly
placed people", according to British investment firm boss Bill Browder.
Browder, the CEO of Hermitage Capital, who gave evidence for the report, told the BBC
said these figures "would basically do intelligence and influence work".
How far will the report delve into the influence of Russian money in British politics?
Although this morning's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) 50-page document is
expected to cover political donations from wealthy Russians, reports suggest it won't
actually name any names.
Spoken by a person who changed his citizenship so as to dodge paying tax. What a slimy toad Browder is!
I shouldn't have said that: toads are very useful creatures.
See -- or better: do not, see unless you have a vomit bag near at hand:
UK politics news live: Latest updates as long-awaited Russia report to be released
today | The Independent
Of course, though, Browder is not an oligarch himself. He's an 'investment firm boss'. And
naturally he does not himself engage 'basically in intelligence and influence work'. He only
single-handedly managed to get the Magnitsky Act on the books, where it will stay forever
although the German press is belatedly owning up that Magnitsky was not the pink-faced legal
cherub Browder portrayed. If that's not influence, I don't know what is.
The west is so fixed on 'getting' Russia that it must simply make things up when it cannot
find real reasons for its hatred. You could say that the USA with its marble-this-and-that
secret algorithms is making up online traffic and attributing it to Russia, but I'm pretty
sure other western countries are not complete oafs themselves in the computer world, and if
you know what you're looking for I'm sure that their analysts can separate fantasy-land gifts
like 'Kremlin Assassination Plan for American Soldiers' from actual Russian plans.
But they
pretend to be fooled. And the best they can come up with is that Russia is behind upsets like
the Black Lives Matter movement which are tearing the USA apart. If Russia always had such a
mysterious weapon, why did it wait so long to use it when the USA and UK spit in its face
every day?
Russia sees the UK as one of its "top targets" in the West, according to the
Intelligence and Security Committee.
The ISC's long-awaited report said the UK was targeted due to its close relationship
with the US and because it is "seen as central to the Western anti-Russian lobby".
Its inquiry covers disinformation campaigns, cyber tactics and Russian expatriates in
the UK.
But much of the "highly sensitive" detail will not be published.
Kind of like a British news release that reports, "Mysterious foreign entity revealed to
be searching for which European men are best in bed – Surprise! it's the British!!"
I guess if nobody else is talking about you. you have to invent lions under the bed.
There's a word for it in psychology.
And from "highly likely" we arrive at another mincing expression used by the British:
The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has judged it "credible" that Russia
attempted to interfere in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 as part of an effort
to influence political life in the UK.
Incredible!!!
See:
UK politics news live: Latest updates as long-awaited Russia report released | The
Independent
The committee – made up of a cross-party group of UK MPs – thanked a long
list of people for their contributions to the inquiry. They curiously included former MI6 spy
Christopher Steele, American journalist Anne Applebaum, American-British financier Bill
Browder and British security specialist Edward Lucas.
See:
UK parliament's intelligence report claims Russia tried to 'influence' Scottish
referendum, spy agencies should probe Brexit
Ha, ha, ha!! Thanks for a great laugh! It reminds me of an open letter someone showed me
the other day, from the New York Police Department and entitled "What Did You Think Would
Happen?" It explored what a third-world shithole the city is becoming now that police are
ordered to keep their distance and their faces in the naughty corner. I didn't get to read it
all, but by the time I could get home and look it up, it had been pulled from the site.
That's how governments on every level cover their fuckups these days – they just
order them scrubbed from public view.
Impressions? It's a shitshow. There's some reference to widely reported 'Open
Source' intelligence (28/40+), i.e. everybody but actual intelligence professionals and lots
of unquestioned conclusions from the likes of Ed Lucas et al (not me). There is much wailing
and gnashing of teeth that the UK is not prepared or that the government takes notice of Open
Source intelligence. It also complains that the UK has been easy to launder 'Russian money'
and buy influence, but not providing a shred of proof of course – except the word of
one William Browder. Those dirty Russians!
The report even uses the term 'Londongrad.' (50) It's almost as if the report has been
written for a tv drama. Of course nobody is named because that would have legal
implications. Can't have that, especially when they say that ' a number of Members of
the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major
Russian companies linked to the Russian state.. '
The report even references reports by now closed BuzzFeed UK articles (58), i.e. the
company that published the string of lies that is the Christopher Steele report that he had
been shopping around the western media for months and getting no bites at all.
The report complains that (100) In the case of Russia, the potential for escalation is
particularly potent: the Russian regime is paranoid about Western intelligence activities and
"is not able to treat objectively" international condemnation of its actions.109 It views any
such moves as Western efforts to encourage internal protest and regime change . –
of course there is a complete absence of any mention of multiple regime change operations by
the west on Russia's borders/strategic periphery, but the UK does not need to justify its
actions when they are Just.
Oh, they also recommend a US style Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) (114+) to keep
an even tighter eye on 'them.' The committee thinks this would be 'effective.' Not too bright
really as there are already plenty of other tools available for the same job, sic threatening
to ban RT fro the UK. With or without a UK FARA, the obvious counter-measure for Russia would
be to ban the BBC and others but nothing has happened because the UK believes its media is
more effective and thus useful soft power tool in Russia than RT is in the UK (Ed Lucas says
RT has a tiny UK following but it is a vanity project for powerful people around Putin).
The UK cannot afford to threaten rich Russians with Unexplained Wealth Orders (119).
Whining that other u-Ropean countries don't want to go along with the UK's Russophobia
– referencing Guardian and The Economist articles. (128)
Curiously there is no mention of Georgia when it comes to 'Russia upsetting relations with
the West.'
In short, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is a rubber stamping
committee that has put out a very poorly sourced report, accepted unquestionably conclusions
from a whole host of very well known russophobes. I suppose the most surprising thing about
the report is how little there is in it. That it is completely one-sided, blinkered,
unquestioning bleating and crying is hardly a surprise. This report only has propaganda value
and nothing more. That is why is wasn't released earlier. Content? Nah!
I'll just repost the first five paragraphs of the Introduction to show what a self-serving
butter wouldn't melt in our mouths aka 'I'm a virgin' view the committee takes of the
UK. Done nuffink wrong guv!
1.
The dissolution of the USSR was a time of hope in the West. In the 1990s and early
2000s, Western thinking was, if not to integrate Russia fully, at least to ensure that it
became
a partner. By the mid-2000s, it was clear that this had not been successful. The murder
of
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 demonstrated that Russia under President Putin had moved
from potential partner to established threat. Since then, there have been a number of
attempts
to repair relations between Western countries and Russia (for example, the US 'Russian
reset' in 2009, and the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow in 2011 in which he expressed a
desire to rebuild the relationship), but the events of recent years show that none has had
any
impact on Russian intent, and therefore on the security threat that Russia poses.
2.
Russia is simultaneously both very strong and very weak. The strengths which
Russia retains are largely its inheritances from the USSR and its status as a victor of
the
Second World War: nuclear weapons, a space presence and a permanent seat on the UN
Security Council. By contrast, it has a small population compared with the West; a lack
of
both reliable partners and cultural influence outside the countries of the former USSR; a
lack of strong public and democratic institutions, including the rule of law; and, of
course,
a weak economy.
3.
Despite its economic weakness, it nonetheless heavily resources its intelligence
services and armed forces, which are disproportionately large and powerful. Moreover,
Russia is adept at using its apparent weaknesses to its advantage: for example, its poor
national brand and lack of long-term global friends appear to feed its enormous risk
appetite
– perhaps on the basis that it thinks it has nothing to lose; its lack of democracy and
rule of
law allows its intelligence agencies to act quickly, without constraint or consideration;
and
its lack of strong independent public bodies and the fusion of government and business
allow it to leverage all its intelligence, military and economic power at the same time
to
pose an all-encompassing security threat.
What does Russia want?
4.
The security threat posed by Russia is difficult for the West to manage as, in our
view and that of many others, it appears fundamentally nihilistic. Russia seems to see
foreign policy as a zero-sum game: any actions it can take which damage the West are
fundamentally good for Russia. It is also seemingly fed by paranoia, believing that
Western
institutions such as NATO and the EU have a far more aggressive posture towards it than
they do in reality. There is also a sense that Russia believes that an undemocratic 'might
is
right' world order plays to its strengths, which leads it to seek to undermine the Rules
Based
International Order – whilst nonetheless benefitting from its membership of
international
political and economic institutions.
5.
Russia's substantive aims, however, are relatively limited: it wishes to be seen as a
resurgent 'great power' – in particular, dominating the countries of the former USSR
– and
to ensure that the privileged position of its leadership clique is not damaged
Didn't have to read further than the second line. There was never a time in the west
when integration of Russia or partnership was ever entertained. Russia broached the idea of
joining NATO, and was told it was not ready and frankly never would be, and a primary partner
in the refusal, by reason of its national objection, was the UK. Putin was right –
Washington runs the west, and Washington wants vassals, not partners. Russia is too big to be
ruled as a colony, and if it cannot be ruled over, the west wants no part of it. The ideal
western solution has always been to break it up into small constituent republics along ethnic
lines, and set them with intrigues and gossip to warring with one another so that they remain
destabilized and suspicious.
"It is also seemingly fed by paranoia, believing that Western institutions such as NATO
and the EU have a far more aggressive posture towards it than they do in reality." Ha, ha;
that's good, that, when Jens Jerkenberg is on the airwaves every other week bleating that
NATO needs to take a firm hand with Russia and be prepared to fight it – and spend much
more money to get ready to do that – when it has not ever been attacked by
Russia.
I write as somebody who held Top Secret clearance for 21 years, with extensive daily
use of Top Secret material that entire time, and the highest possible specific codeword
clearance above Top Secret for 11 years. I personally conducted for the FCO the largest
"action on" operation in GCHQ history .
"Credible open source reporting" is a propaganda formulation designed to fool you and
give a false imprimatur to any dubious piece of published work .
####
So, no surprise to us here and many other people. It is in fact, yet again, western
Hybrid Warfare.
Nonetheless, I daresay Moscow will be 'furious' and 'fuming'. Thanks for reading all that
rubbish so I don't have to. It struck me this morning how few remaining institutions there
are for which I have any respect at all. For instance, how am I supposed to have any respect
for the medical profession when they're all kitted out in those stupid paper masks, not even
the N-95's, but the expandable rectangular blue ones that have a pinch clip for the nose, and
leave big gaps on either side of the face? If they will wear those without demur, they either
believe they are being protected from viral infections, or are simply going through the
motions because it's an order. You could say the same of the Intelligence Agencies. Rubbish
off Twitter and photos with no provenance are now perfectly acceptable for intelligence work,
and Bellingcat is recognized as a working NATO asset. These agencies are caught time and
again attempting to foist doctored photos and fabricated stories on the public, and only back
down when caught redhanded. Consequently, all their product must be suspected of tampering
and politicization. There really are precious few organizations in the west which can still
be trusted. I'm assuming there are some, although to be honest I can't think of any off the
top of my head. But they want you to believe Russia is jealous of our freedoms. What
freedoms? Of our access to the Rule of Law. But we willingly partner with Saudi Arabia, which
is ruled by a monarchy and where they cut off your hand for stealing – that's the Rule
of Law, too, innit? None higher, when you think about it; it's Hudud, which comes straight
from God.
This is not simply projection on the part of UK MI5/MI6 duet, this is a real war on reality.
UK false flag operation with Skripla poisoning (which probably was designed to hide possible role
of Skripal in creating Steele dossier) now will forever be textbook example of evilness MI5/MI6
honchos.
If we think that GRU is the past was able to fight Abwehr to standstill, they really would now be worried
about the blowback from Skripal mess.
A highly-anticipated report by the U.K. Parliament into Russia n interference in the country was
released on Tuesday, claiming that Russian influence in the U.K. is the "new normal."
The Russia Report, published after months of delay, is the culmination of two years of fact
finding by the U.K. Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ICS), providing insights
on the
Salisbury Novichok poisonings , Russian financial influence and social media
disinformation. The report said the U.K. was a "top target" for Russian interference.
The publication of the report comes a week after security services in the U.S., U.K. and
Canada said that Russian hackers had been attempting to
hack into global coronavirus vaccine research . The Kremlin has denied the accusations.
However, the report will likely disappoint observers who expected the ICS to detail
how far Russia interfered in the bitterly contested Brexit Referendum of 2016 . Prime
Minister Boris Johnson's was accused of withholding the publication of the report until after
the election of December 2019, a claim they denied.
I am not a fan of military spending – following an excellent post by John about
Eisenhower's famous speech (more tanks or more hospitals), I often use it as an example
opportunity cost when teaching. One can certainly claim that the budget should be lower but,
as a share of overall economic resources, the budget has been cut substantially in the last
30 years.
There is something rotten in the state .. of England.
This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was
involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier. He was getting
homesick (perhaps his mother getting older is part of this) for Russia and he thought that to
get back to Russia he needed something big to get back in Putin's good graces. He would have
needed something really big because Putin really has no use for traitors. Skripal put out some
feelers (perhaps through his daughter though that may be dicey). The two couriers were sent to
seal or move the deal forward. The Brits (and perhaps the CIA) found out about this and decided
to make an example of Sergei. Perhaps because they found out about this late, the deep
state/intelligence people had to move very quickly. The deep state story was was extremely
shaky (to put it mildly) as a result. Or they were just incompetent and full of hubris.
Then they were stuck with the story and bullshit coverup was layered on bullshit coverup. 7
Reply FlorianGeyer Reply to
Marcus April 20, 2019
@ Marcus.
To hope to get away with lies, one must have perfect memory and a superior intellect that
can create a lie with some semblance of reality in real life, as opposed to the digital
'reality' in a Video game. And a rather corny video game at that.
MI5/6 failed on all parts of Lie creation 2 Reply Mistaron April 21, 2019
If Trump was so furious about being conned by Haspel, how come he then went on to promote
her to becoming the head of the CIA? It's quite perplexing.
The text of the OPCW document is "enhanced" in FT reports. "Sexed up" was the term used
about the UN Weapons Inspectors' report on Iraq's WMD programme way back when.
A Dr. David Kelly was involved. I wonder what became of him?
That term "sexed up" really made me cringe when it suddenly came in vogue amongst UK
commenters and "journalists" .
I was already in exile when the the shit hit the fan in the UK as regards criminal Blair's
warmongering and was at a loss to understand what "sexed up" meant in the British newspaper
articles that I read at the time -- no Internet then, so once a week I used to buy a copy of
the "Sunday Times" (Woden forgive me!) in the foyer of of the five-star Hotel National,
Moscow. Used to cost me an arm and a leg an' all! Robbing bastards!
Tutisicecream
Jul 17, 2020 8:44 AM Yikes! The Ruskies are hacking again! Let's not forget that the British Superb plan for
Brexit was born out of Vova's cunning mind.
From the people who brought you polonium in a teacup, Basha's bouncing Barrel Bombs,
Salisbury Plain Pizza and the Covid- Horrid. Now want you to know Vova is back!
Last weekend they launched their counter move with Luke Harding interviewing himself
about his new book
The decline of the Guardian is legend and one of their supposed ace gumshoes, Luke
Harding, who has been the chief protagonist of the "Stupid Russia/ Cunning Russia" Guardian
editorial line gets this time to interview himself. Displacement in psychology, as I'm sure
Luke must have learnt from his handlers, is where we see in others that which we can't or
fail to recognise in ourselves.
Those CIFers long in the tooth will recall how he moderated his own BTL comments on
Russia until it all got too much for him. At which point they were cancelled. Now it seems
it's all gone to a new level as Harding apparently interviews himself about his new book! In
the Guardian's new post apocalyptic normal, where self censorship plus self promotion is the
norm for their self congratulatory hacks and hackets Harding never fails to amaze at this
genre.
As expected the reader is taken into the usual spy vs spy world of allusion and
narrative plus fake intrigue and facts, so much the hallmark of Harding's work. None of which
stands up to serious analysis as we recall:
where we have Arron Maté, a real journalist doing a superb job of exposing Harding
as the crude propagandist he truly is.
This interview is about Harding's last book "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and
How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win the 2016 US election".
Now we have a new cash cow where clearly with Harding's latest shtick the Guardian can't
be arsed having him interviewed for another piece of self promotion by one of their hacks. So
they go for the off the shelf fake interview where they allow Harding to talk to himself.
Clearly as they point out Harding is working for home, with more than one foot in the
grave it must be time to furlough him.
The above link exhaustively details how the fraud was perpetrated and how the White
Helmets were funded. The most disturbing facts were the murder of captive Syrian civilians
including children for use as props for Western media. There is little doubt in my mind that
these murders were viewed as standard business practice with the only concern being related
to complication from being caught. Of course, being "caught" was a minor inconvenience that
the MSM could easily manage into oblivion.
Mr. Le Mesurier may have been killed as the White Helmets no longer had value and dead men
rarely talk:
His wife was not very helpful in the investigation having changed her story several
times.
Winberg said she looked for her husband inside the house and saw his lifeless body when
she looked out of the window. Police are investigating now how she was able to wake up about
half an hour after she took a sleeping pill and why she stacked a large amount of money
inside the house into bags immediately after Le Mesurier's body was found.
Among questions that are needed to be addressed in the case is why Le Mesurier, who intended
to sleep, did not change his clothes, did not even loosen his belt or remove his watch. It is
also not known why he did not choose a definitive suicidal action to kill himself, instead of
jumping from a relatively low height and why he chose to walk along the roof, passing around
the air conditioning devices on the roof, instead of jumping to the street directly from the
section of the roof closer to his window.
US military spending is certainly much higher than it needs to be for US defense needs. But
the US military is not primarily defending the US. It is defending Asia from China, NATO from
Russia, and a number of countries from Iran, not to speak of Norkland.
IOW, the US military is defending US global hegemony, and is priced accordingly. What you
think of US military spending depends on what you think of the US as a hegemon.
I am not a fan of military spending – following an excellent post by John about
Eisenhower's famous speech (more tanks or more hospitals), I often use it as an example
opportunity cost when teaching. One can certainly claim that the budget should be lower but,
as a share of overall economic resources, the budget has been cut substantially in the last
30 years.
Not much different from the British public (media). UKgov was in trouble last week for
failing to have their own man as head of the toothless rubberstamping parliamentary
intelligence and security committee, shortly afterwards UKGov amped up 'Russia wot stole our
vaccine' and the whole UK media ran with it, save a couple of articles qustioning the
'timing'.
The thinking the US & UK have in common is that there is no cost to their
lying. They're only thinking of the short term obviously, but they depend on the other to
turn the cheek ignore it as 'domstic politiking.' Last saturday I saw the al-Beeb s'allah
preview of RusAmb interview to be broadcast on Sunday. The anchor had an 'expert' to help
her. Cue cherry brief picked quotes from the interview to make the Ambassador look weak and
the 'expert' saying 'that's what you would expect them to say.'
Today I see that Scotland is now the target, i.e. that Russia 'interfered' with the
independence referendum. It's not even anything goes August yet. This whole year has
been August reporting.
"... There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. ..."
"... Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'? ..."
"... a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources. ..."
"... His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. ..."
Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I
saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use
of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the "
Kremlin Playbook "
with this ominous beginning
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their
positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has
experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same
time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.
And asks
Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode
the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence
of the enemy system'?
Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment
at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the
total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians
deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly
wasn't the last.
Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential
election. Somehow. To some effect. Never really specified but the latest outburst of insanity
is this video from the
Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes: "I think it's really
cool how we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be
subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project, and the others shrieking about Russian
interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so
gullible that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state
indeed.
What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language
that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important
document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would
be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not
know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The
Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for,
the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in
existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so
that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked.
Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human
cunning could devise; right up there with
the nuclear codes .
And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls
far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.
There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's
written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can
have a personal copy: it's named "
From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by
Gene Sharp (1928-2018) .
Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting,
his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as
"democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or
Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes .
Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line
but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord
being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary
"Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been
used to produce what only the propagandists could call "
model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction ,
war and
refugees .
Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there
ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is
suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with
the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't
and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The
USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down
event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war
on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about
the violence ;
"non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are
manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance,
direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And,
not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's
research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the
shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right
organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as
Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have
had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit
of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and
codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many
shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it
only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities.
With a great deal of outside effort and resources.
Did Skripal played any role in this mess. In this case his poisoning looks more logical as an attempt to hide him from
Russians, who might well suspect him in playing a role in creating Steele dossier by some myths that were present in it.
Notable quotes:
"... Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence". ..."
Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017.
Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary
Committee Friday afternoon.
The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele's sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking
contractor for the former British spy's company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the
Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From
the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled
warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence
memos.
Paul Manafort: The Steele dossier's "Primary Subsource" admitted to the FBI "that he was
'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given." AP
Photo/Seth Wenig, File
Steele's operation didn't rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource's
account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring
of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: "Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort's
dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes." The Primary
Subsource admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was
a 'strange task' to have been given."
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia
– he didn't have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a
"social circle." And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with
his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with
the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about
Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
Also in his "social circle" was Primary Subsource's friend "Source 2," a character who was
always on the make. "He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource],
suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money," the Primary
Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again.) It
was Source 2 who "told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on
Trump."
And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the
Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting
the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations
about Trump, they would also talk about "a private subject." (The FBI agents, for all their
hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that "private subject"
was).
Michael Cohen: The bogus story of the Trump fixer's trip to Prague seems to have originated
with "Source 3," a woman friend of the Primary Subsource, who was "not sure if Source 3 was
brainstorming here." AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got
around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter
Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his
special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn't. But within minutes she
seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came
back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with
Russians.
Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen
was delivering "deniable cash payments" to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary
Subsource was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here," the FBI notes say.
The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had
been "recruited under duress by the FSB" -- the Russian security service -- and how they "had
been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct
'altering operations' against the the Democratic Party." What exactly, the FBI asked the
subject, were "altering operations?" The Primary Subsource wouldn't be much help there, as he
told the FBI "that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was 'zero.'" But what about his
girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource
admitted to the FBI that Source 3 "is not an IT specialist herself."
And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.
Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to
confirm the story" about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who
supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're
doing." Moscowjob.net/Wikimedia
While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist "at
a Thai restaurant." The Primary Subsource didn't want to ask "revealing questions" but managed
to go so far as to ask, "Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this
Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?" According to the FBI notes, the journalist told
Primary Subsource "that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up." But the
journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a "colleague" who in turn gave him an email
of "this guy" journalist 2 had interviewed and "that he should talk to."
With the email address of "this guy" in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message "in
either June or July 2016." Some weeks later the Primary Subsource "received a telephone call
from an unidentified Russia guy." He "thought" but had no evidence that the mystery "Russian
guy" was " that guy." The mystery caller "never identified himself." The Primary Subsource
labeled the anonymous caller "Source 6." The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total
of "about 10 minutes." During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource
traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.
Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice "Source 6" and gave
Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had "a general
discussion about Trump and the Kremlin" and "that it was an ongoing relationship." For use in
the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.
When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier,
here's how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: "Speaking in confidence to a
compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US
presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of
co-operation between them and the Russian leadership." Steele writes "Inter alia," – yes,
he really does deploy the Latin formulation for "among other things" – "Source E
acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail
messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks
platform."
All that and more is presented as the testimony of a "close associate" of Trump, when it was
just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.
Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E was just an
anonymous caller, didn't compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare
the dossier a fabrication on the spot.
But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative
skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the
dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his
hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least
he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the
obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.
But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele "was not
the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting." Steele, the IG
reported "relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary
Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed
to Steele." The inspector general's report noted that "neither Steele nor the Primary
Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported."
One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to
doubt the story that Trump was "into water sports" as the Primary Subsource so delicately
described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort,
however feeble, to nail down the "rumor and speculation" that Trump engaged in "unorthodox
sexual activity at the Ritz."
While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story,"
Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score)
supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, "one
never knows what they're doing." One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of
something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring
that at least "it wasn't a denial."
If there was any denial going on it was the FBI's, an agency in denial that its
extraordinary investigation was crumbling.
bh2, 23 minutes ago
Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".
So Russia started to suspect him and British staged this fun show with Novichok ?
Heavily drinking individuals are probably common in London Russian emigrant circles.
‘Duckgate’, as it is now being dubbed, was used to trick US President Trump into expelling 60 Russian Diplomats over false
photographic evidence presented to him by Haspel, as it was provided to her by UK authorities. The manipulation of Trump, courtesy
of CIA Director Haspel, the UK government (and accidentally documented on by the NYT), had blown first serious holes into the
entire narrative that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by Russian agents with the deadly Novichok nerve agent.
"Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the
Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were
inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives "
Notable quotes:
"... The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos. ..."
The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British
spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names
remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors
and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos.
...Steele’s operation didn’t rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource’s account. He described to
the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: “Do you know [about]
Manafort? Find out about Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes.” The
Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI “that he was ‘clueless’ about who Manafort was, and that this was a ‘strange task’ to have
been given.”
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia – he didn’t have a network of sources,
according to his lawyer, but instead just a “social circle.” And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get
together with his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with the Manafort question
and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
bh2 , 23 minutes ago
Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".
Versengetorix, 1 hour ago remove
The Durham investigation has been covered over with asphalt.
ze_vodka , 1 hour ago
After all that has happened, if anyone actually still thinks the Trump = Putin story has
any shred of truth... well... there are no words left to write about that.
It was a lie.
Everyone involved is pretty much a seditious traitor.
Everyone who has at least 1 lonely marble floating in the Grey Matter Soup knows it's a
lie.
The establishment's massive propaganda campaigns and psyops CANCEL the truth or make it
unrecognizable via coloring and half-truths. Russiagate, White Helmets, Skripals, MH-17,
Integrity Initiative, Assange, Russian Bounties & remaining in Afghanistan, "China
virus", hydroxyChloroquine, etc.
The Trump Administration has CANCELED entire countries via terminating peace treaties,
imposing sanctions, covert war, and conducting a propaganda war.
Where is the outrage from writers, artists, and academics about THAT?
"... While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The President canceled two arms treaties, imposed sanctions on Moscow, and sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine. ..."
"... Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington. ..."
"... "There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat during his years with the government. ..."
"... And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that can't fly . ..."
On June 26, in a major front page story, The New York Times
wrote that Russia paid a bounty to the Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan last
year. The story quickly unraveled.
While the military is investigating the allegations, Mark Miley, chair of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff says
there's no proof that Russian payments led to any US deaths. The National Security Agency
says it found
no communications intelligence supporting the bounty claim.
Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., head of the US Central Command, says he's not
convinced that American troops died as a result of Russian bounties.
"I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," he
tellsThe Washington Post .
Sina Toossi, senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, tells me
the controversy reveals an internecine battle within the foreign policy establishment. "Many
in the national security establishment in Washington are searching for reasons to keep US
troops in Afghanistan," Toossi says. "This story plays into those broader debates."
Troop withdrawal?
Faced with no end to its unpopular war in Afghanistan, the Trump Administration negotiated an agreement with
the Taliban in February. Washington agreed to gradually pull out troops, and the Taliban
promised not to attack US personnel.
The Taliban and Afghan government are supposed to hold peace talks and release prisoners
of war. The US troop withdrawal won't be completed until May 2021, giving the administration
in power the ability to renege on the deal.
Nevertheless, powerful members of the Afghan intelligence elite and some in the US
national security establishment strongly object to the agreement and want to keep US troops
in the country permanently.
Matthew Hoh, who worked for the State Department in Afghanistan and is now a senior fellow
with the Center for
International Policy , tells me that the reports of Russian bounties likely originated
with the Afghanistan intelligence agency.
"The mention of Russia was a key word," says Hoh. CIA officials fast-tracked the Afghan
reports. They argued that Russia's interference, and Trump's failure to respond, only
emboldens the Russians.
Originally, the Times
claimed $500,000 in Russian bounty money was seized at the home of a Taliban operative
named Rahmatullah Azizi. He turned out to be an Afghan drug smuggler who had previously
worked as a contractor
for Washington.
The Times later admitted that
investigators "could not say for sure that it was bounty money."
Hoh says the alleged bounties make no sense politically or militarily. Last year, he says,
"The Taliban didn't need any incentives to kill Americans." And this year, it has stopped all
attacks on US forces as part of the February agreement.
But leading Democrats ignore the unraveling of the story in a rush to attack the White
House from the right. Joe Biden reached deep into his Cold War tool box to blast Trump.
"Not only has he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this
egregious violation of international law, Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing
campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin," Biden
told a town hall meeting.
Demonizing Russia
While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line
against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The
President canceled
two arms treaties,
imposed sanctions on Moscow, and
sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine.
Both high-ranking Republicans and Democrats benefit politically by creating an evil
Russian enemy, according to Vladimir Pozner, Putin critic and host of a popular Russian TV
interview program.
The bounty accusation "keeps the myth alive of Putin and Russia being a vicious,
cold-blooded enemy of the US," Pozner tells me.
Some call it the foreign policy establishment; others say the national security state or
simply the Deep State. A group of officials in the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence
agencies and war industries have played an outsized role in foreign policy for decades. And
it's not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and
State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring
secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the
pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington.
"There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat
during his years with the government.
The Deep State is not monolithic, he cautions. "You won't find a backroom with guys
smoking cigars. But there is a notion of US primacy and a bent towards military
intervention."
And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan
report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the
Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies
revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that
can't fly .
"It's Russia hysteria," says Hoh.
Afghans suffer
While the Washington elite wage internal trench warfare, the people of Afghanistan suffer.
More than 100,000 Afghans have died because of the war, with 10,000
casualties each year, according to the United Nations . The Pentagon
reports 2,219 US soldiers
died and 20,093 were wounded in the Afghan war.
A lesser imperialist power, Russia has its own interests in Afghanistan. It has taken
advantage of the US decline in the region to expand influence in Syria and Libya.
According to Pozner, Russia doesn't favor a Taliban government in Afghanistan. The Kremlin
considers the Taliban a dangerous terrorist organization. But if the Taliban comes to power,
Pozner says, "Russia would like to have stable relations with them. You have to take things
as they are and build as good a relationship as possible."
Neither Russia nor any other outside power has the means or desire to control Afghanistan.
At best, they hope for a stable neighbor, not one trying to spread extremism in the
region.
That's been the stated US goal for years. Ironically, it can't be achieved until US troops
withdraw.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him onTwitter, @ReeseErlich; friend him onFacebook; and visit hiswebpage.
John, what say you about US/global military spending, which if cut and reallocated in the
low double digits could transform society? Do you think it's just politically untouchable? If
the US cut its military budget by say 25% it would still be formidable, especially given its
nuclear deterrent. For the life of me I can never understand why military budgets are
sacrosanct. Is it just WW2 and Cold War hangover? Couldn't the obvious effects of climate
change and the fragility of the economy subject to natural threats like the pandemic change
attitudes about overfunding the military (like the debacle of the F-35 program)?
Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent
or less most places. So that's a significant and unproductive use of resources that could be
redirected to better effect. But the income of the top 1 per cent is around 20 per cent of
total income. If that was cut in half, there would be little or no reduction in the
productive services supplied by this group. If you want big change, that's where you need to
look.
I think some of the reluctance to cut military spending in the US is the extent to which
it acts as a politically unassailable source of fiscal stimulus and "welfare" in a country
where such things are otherwise anathema. Well, that and all of the grift it represents for
the donor class.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
"... Not to be outdone, the censors are also taking aim at To Kill a Mockingbird , Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about Atticus Finch, a white lawyer in the Jim Crow South who defends a black man falsely accused of rape. Sixty years after its debut, the book remains a powerful testament to moral courage in the face of racial bigotry and systemic injustice , told from the point of view of a child growing up in the South, but that's not enough for the censors. They want to axe the book -- along with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn -- from school reading curriculums because of the presence of racial slurs that could make students feel "humiliated or marginalized." ..."
"... What started with Joseph McCarthy's headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once corporations and the American people caught the fever. ..."
"... McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was: an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful. ..."
"... Battlefield America: The War on the American People ..."
For those old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era, there is a whiff of something
in the air that reeks of the heightened paranoia, finger-pointing, fear-mongering, totalitarian
tactics that were hallmarks of the 1950s.
Back then, it was the government -- spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House
Un-American Activities Committee -- working in tandem with private corporations and individuals
to blacklist Americans suspected of being communist sympathizers.
By the time the witch hunts carried out by federal and state investigative agencies drew to
a close, thousands of individuals (
the vast majority of them innocent any crime whatsoever ) had been accused of communist
ties, investigated, subpoenaed and blacklisted. Regarded as bad risks, the accused were
blacklisted, and struggled to secure employment. The witch hunt ruined careers, resulting in
suicides, and tightened immigration to exclude alleged subversives.
Seventy years later, the vitriol, fear-mongering and knee-jerk intolerance associated with
McCarthy's tactics are once again being deployed in a free-for-all attack by those on both the
political Left and Right against anyone who, in daring to think for themselves, subscribes to
ideas or beliefs that run counter to the government's or mainstream thought
It doesn't even seem to matter what the issue is anymore (racism, Confederate monuments,
Donald Trump, COVID-19, etc.): modern-day activists are busily tearing down monuments,
demonizing historic figures, boycotting corporations for perceived political transgressions,
and using their bully pulpit to terrorize the rest of the country into kowtowing to their
demands
All the while, the American police state continues to march inexorably forward.
This is how fascism, which silences all dissenting views, prevails.
The silence is becoming deafening.
After years of fighting in and out of the courts to keep their 87-year-old name, the NFL's
Washington Redskins have bowed to public pressure and will
change their name and team logo to avoid causing offense . The new name, not yet announced,
aims to honor both the military and Native Americans.
Who needs a government censor when the American people are already doing such a great job at
censoring themselves and each other, right?
Now there's a push underway to
boycott Goya Foods after its CEO, Robert Unanue, praised President Trump during a press
conference to announce Goya's donation of a million cans of Goya chickpeas and a million other
food products to American food banks as part of the president's Hispanic Prosperity
Initiative.
Mind you, Unanue -- whose grandfather emigrated to the U.S. from Spain -- also praised the
Obamas when they were in office, but that kind of equanimity doesn't carry much weight in this
climate of intolerance.
This is also the overlooked part of how oppression becomes systemic: it comes about as a
result of a combined effort between the populace, the corporations and the government.
McCarthyism worked the same way.
What started with Joseph McCarthy's headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about
Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once
corporations and the American people caught the fever.
McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too
fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was:
an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful.
The parallels to the present movement cannot be understated.
The contagion of fear that McCarthy helped spread with the help of government agencies,
corporations and the power elite is still poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning
citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.
What we desperately need is the kind of resolve embodied by Edward R. Murrow, the
most-respected newsman of his day.
On March 9, 1954, Murrow dared to speak truth to power about the damage McCarthy was
inflicting on the American people. His message remains a timely warning for our age.
We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of
unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not
descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to
defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.
America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to
freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on
everything in its path.
The outcome rests, as always, with "we the people." As Murrow said to his staff before the
historic March 9 broadcast: "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his
accomplices."
Feature photo | Nehemiah Nuk Nuk Johnson, left, with JUICE (Justice Unites Individuals and
Communities Everywhere), confronts a counter protester who did not give his name in Martinez,
Calif., July 12, 2020, during a protest calling for an end to racial injustice and
accountability for police. Jeff Chiu | AP
"... Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41. ..."
"... Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from power. ..."
"... Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy. ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of ..."
SCOTT RITTER: Powell & Iraq -- Regime Change, Not Disarmament: The Fundamental
Lie July 18, 2020 Save
Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards
Saddam Hussein. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.
T he New York Times Magazine has published a puff piece soft-peddling former
Secretary of State Colin Powell's role in selling a war on Iraq to the UN Security Council
using what turned out to be bad intelligence. "Colin Powell Still Wants Answers" is the title
of the article, written by Robert Draper. "The analysts who provided the intelligence," a
sub-header to the article declares, "now say it was doubted inside the CIA at the time."
Draper's article is an extract from a book, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration
Took America into Iraq , scheduled for publication later this month. In the interest of
full disclosure, I was approached by Draper in 2018 about his interest in writing this book,
and I agreed to be interviewed as part of his research. I have not yet read the book, but can
note that, based upon the tone and content of his New York Times Magazine article, my
words apparently carried little weight.
Regime Change, Not WMD
I spent some time articulating to Draper my contention that the issue with Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but rather regime change, and that
everything had to be viewed in the light of this reality -- including Powell's Feb. 5, 2003
presentation before the UN Security Council. Based upon the content of his article, I might as
well have been talking to a brick wall.
Powell's 2003 presentation before the council did not take place in a policy vacuum. In many
ways, the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a continuation of
the 1991 Gulf War, which Powell helped orchestrate. Its fumbled aftermath was again, something
that transpired on Powell's watch as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the
administration of George H. W. Bush.
Powell at UN Security Council. (UN Photo)
Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that
Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled
the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution
in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's
post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41.
Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to
continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security
Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD
prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these
sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from
power.
Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.
I bore witness to the reality of this policy as a weapons inspector working for the United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), created under the mandate of resolution 687 to oversee the
disarming of Iraq's WMD. Brought in to create an intelligence capability for the inspection
team, my remit soon expanded to operations and, more specifically, how Iraq was hiding retained
weapons and capability from the inspectors.
SCUDS
UN weapons inspectors in central Iraq, June 1, 1991. (UN Photo)
One of my first tasks was addressing discrepancies in Iraq's accounting of its modified SCUD
missile arsenal; in December 1991 I wrote an assessment that Iraq was likely retaining
approximately 100 missiles. By March 1992 Iraq, under pressure, admitted it had retained a
force of 89 missiles (that number later grew to 97).
After extensive investigations, I was able to corroborate the Iraqi declarations, and in
November 1992 issued an assessment that UNSCOM could account for the totality of Iraq's SCUD
missile force. This, of course, was an unacceptable conclusion, given that a compliant Iraq
meant sanctions would need to be lifted and Saddam would survive.
The U.S. intelligence community rejected my findings without providing any fact-based
evidence to refute it, and the CIA later briefed the Senate that it assessed Iraq to be
retaining a force of some 200 covert SCUD missiles. This all took place under Powell's watch as
chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
I challenged the CIA's assessment, and organized the largest, most complex inspection in
UNSCOM's history to investigate the intelligence behind the 200-missile assessment. In the end,
the intelligence was shown to be wrong, and in November 1993 I briefed the CIA Director's
senior staff on UNSCOM's conclusion that all SCUD missiles were accounted for.
Moving the Goalposts
The CIA's response was to assert that Iraq had a force of 12-20 covert SCUD missiles, and
that this number would never change, regardless of what UNSCOM did. This same assessment was in
play at the time of Powell's Security Council presentation, a blatant lie born of the willful
manufacture of lies by an entity -- the CIA -- whose task was regime change, not
disarmament.
Powell knew all of this, and yet he still delivered his speech to the UN Security
Council.
In October 2002, in a
briefing designed to undermine the credibility of UN inspectors preparing to return to
Iraq, the Defense Intelligence Agency trotted out Dr. John Yurechko, the defense intelligence
officer for information operations and denial and deception, to provide a briefing detailing
U.S. claims that Iraq was engaged in a systematic process of concealment regarding its WMD
programs.
John Yurechko, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, briefs reporters at the Pentagon on Oct.
8, 2002 (U.S. Defense Dept.)
According to Yurechko, the briefing was compiled from several sources, including "inspector
memoirs" and Iraqi defectors. The briefing was farcical, a deliberate effort to propagate
misinformation by the administration of Bush 43. I know -- starting in 1994, I led a concerted
UNSCOM effort involving the intelligence services of eight nations to get to the bottom of
Iraq's so-called "concealment mechanism."
Using innovative imagery intelligence techniques, defector debriefs, agent networks and
communications intercepts, combined with extremely aggressive on-site inspections, I was able,
by March 1998, to conclude that Iraqi concealment efforts were largely centered on protecting
Saddam Hussein from assassination, and had nothing to do with hiding WMD. This, too, was an
inconvenient finding, and led to the U.S. dismantling the apparatus of investigation I had so
carefully assembled over the course of four years.
It was never about the WMD -- Powell knew this. It was always about regime change.
Using UN as Cover for Coup Attempt
In 1991, Powell signed off on the incorporation of elite U.S. military commandos into the
CIA's Special Activities Staff for the purpose of using UNSCOM as a front to collect
intelligence that could facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein. I worked with this special
cell from 1991 until 1996, on the mistaken opinion that the unique intelligence, logistics and
communications capability they provided were useful to planning and executing the complex
inspections I was helping lead in Iraq.
This program resulted in the failed coup attempt in June 1996 that used UNSCOM as its
operational cover -- the coup failed, the Special Activities Staff ceased all cooperation with
UNSCOM, and we inspectors were left holding the bag. The Iraqis had every right to be concerned
that UNSCOM inspections were being used to target their president because, the truth be told,
they were.
Nowhere in Powell's presentation to the Security Council, or in any of his efforts to recast
that presentation as a good intention led astray by bad intelligence, does the reality of
regime change factor in. Regime change was the only policy objective of three successive U.S.
presidential administrations -- Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.
Powell was a key player in two of these. He knew. He knew about the existence of the CIA's
Iraq Operations Group. He knew of the successive string of covert "findings" issued by U.S.
presidents authorizing the CIA to remove Saddam Hussein from power using lethal force. He knew
that the die had been cast for war long before Bush 43 decided to engage the United Nations in
the fall of 2002.
Powell Knew
Powell knew all of this, and yet he still allowed himself to be used as a front to sell this
conflict to the international community, and by extension the American people, using
intelligence that was demonstrably false. If, simply by drawing on my experience as an UNSCOM
inspector, I knew every word he uttered before the Security Council was a lie the moment he
spoke, Powell should have as well, because every aspect of my work as an UNSCOM inspector was
known to, and documented by, the CIA.
It is not that I was unknown to Powell in the context of the WMD narrative. Indeed, my name
came up during an
interview Powell gave to Fox News on Sept. 8, 2002, when he was asked to comment on a quote
from my speech to the Iraqi Parliament earlier that month in which I stated:
"The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not to date been
backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of
weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the United
States. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation."
"We have facts, not speculation. Scott is certainly entitled to his opinion but I'm afraid
that I would not place the security of my nation and the security of our friends in the
region on that kind of an assertion by somebody who's not in the intelligence chain any
longer If Scott is right, then why are they keeping the inspectors out? If Scott is right,
why don't they say, 'Anytime, any place, anywhere, bring 'em in, everybody come in -- we are
clean?' The reason is they are not clean. And we have to find out what they have and what
we're going to do about it. And that's why it's been the policy of this government to insist
that Iraq be disarmed in accordance with the terms of the relevant UN resolutions."
UN inspectors in Iraq. (UN Photo)
Of course, in November 2002, Iraq did just what Powell said they would never do -- they let
the UN inspectors return without preconditions. The inspectors quickly exposed the fact that
the "high quality" U.S. intelligence they had been tasked with investigating was pure bunk.
Left to their own devices, the new round of UN weapons inspections would soon be able to give
Iraq a clean bill of health, paving the way for the lifting of sanctions and the continued
survival of Saddam Hussein.
Powell knew this was not an option. And thus he allowed himself to be used as a vehicle for
disseminating more lies -- lies that would take the U.S. to war, cost thousands of U.S. service
members their lives, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, all in the name of regime
change.
Back to Robert Draper. I spent a considerable amount of time impressing upon him the reality
of regime change as a policy, and the fact that the WMD disarmament issue existed for the sole
purpose of facilitating regime change. Apparently, my words had little impact, as all Draper
has done in his article is continue the false narrative that America went to war on the weight
of false and misleading intelligence.
Draper is wrong -- America went to war because it was our policy as a nation, sustained over
three successive presidential administrations, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. By 2002 the
WMD narrative that had been used to support and sustain this regime change policy was
weakening.
Powell's speech was a last-gasp effort to use the story of Iraqi WMD for the purpose it was
always intended -- to facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. In this light, Colin
Powell's speech was one of the greatest successes in CIA history. That is not the story,
however, Draper chose to tell, and the world is worse off for that failed opportunity.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet
Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm,
and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
ofConsortium News.
PleaseContributeto Consortium
News on its 25th Anniversary
"... Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party. ..."
"... "miscarriage of justice" ..."
"... "collusion" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable ..."
New documents show the FBI was aware that the infamous dossier
used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable, and that the New York Times published false information
about the 'Russiagate' probe.
The two documents were published on Friday by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina),
as part of an ongoing probe of the FBI's investigation of Trump. One is a 59-page, heavily redacted
interview
of the "primary sub-source" for Christopher Steele, the British spy commissioned through a series of cut-outs by the
Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump during the 2016 election campaign.
While the identity of the source is hidden, the document makes it clear it was not a current or former Russian official, but a
non-Russian employee of Steele's British company, Orbis. The source's testimony seriously questioned the claims made in the dossier
– which is best known for the salacious accusation that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia with tapes of an alleged sex romp in
a Moscow hotel.
The second, and more intriguing, document is a five-page
printout
of a February 14, 2017 article from the New York Times, along with 13 notes by Peter Strzok, one of the senior FBI agents handling
the Russiagate probe. The article was published five days after the FBI interview with the sub-source, and Strzok actually shows
awareness of it (in note 11, specifically).
In the very first note, Strzok labeled as "misleading and inaccurate" the claim by the New York Times that the Trump
campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election, noting there was "no evidence"
of this.
Likewise, Strzok denied the FBI was investigating Roger Stone (note 10) – a political operative eventually indicted by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller over allegedly lying about (nonexistent) ties to WikiLeaks, whose sentence Trump recently commuted to outrage
from 'Russiagate' proponents. Nor was Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort on any calls involving Russian government officials,
contrary to claims by the Times (note 3).
Not only did the FBI know the story was false, in part based on the knowledge they had from Steele's source, but the recently
ousted FBI director Jim Comey had openly disputed it in June 2017. The paper stood by its reporting.
Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign
via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation.
Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals
all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled
at the behest of a rival political party.
The last two renewals, in April and June 2017, were requested after the sub-source interview. Commenting on the document release,
Sen. Graham called these two renewals a "miscarriage of justice" and argued that the FBI and the Department of Justice should
have stopped and re-evaluated their case.
Mueller eventually found no "collusion" between Trump and Russia as alleged by the Democrats, but not before a dozen
people – from Stone and Manafort to Trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn and innocent Russian student Maria Butina
– became casualties of the investigation.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 236 13
Austin Rock 22 hours ago Staggering is the monumental deceitful effort to hitch Trump to Russia. And yet for MSM and their poodles
in the press no barb thrown is too outragious, no smear is too false enough. With Google, Twitter and Facebook on board we Europeans
are being played. But we Europeans are not as stupid as your average US punter. These pathetic fairy tales are an embarressement
to journalism.
Looks like Guardian is another intelligence agencies controlled entity.
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern propaganda works. ..."
"... As it was anti-Russian I expected it to be accompanied with a Luke Harding byline but this is from the Defence and Security Editor, Dan Sabbagh, Harding, as well as being a plagiarist, has written four anti-Russian books including "Collusion" about how Russia helped Donald Trump get into power (using the discredited Steele dossier as his main source). Here Aaron Mate interviews him leaving him totally uncomfortable by the end. ..."
The Guardian, and all the other predictable voices, are currently reporting that Russian
"state sponsored hackers" have been attempting to steal "medical secrets" from British
pharmaceutical researchers.
At this stage they offer no substantiation, but it does serve as good teaching exercise in
the techniques of modern propagandists.
First the lack of evidence. Observe the Guardian article, note the complete absence of
sources or references. There's not a link in sight. There's no content there beyond the
parroted words of UK government officials, whose honesty and/or competence is never
interrogated.
Second, the lies by omission. They don't mention, for example, the
Vault 7 revelations from Wikileaks that the CIA/Pentagon
have developed technology to make one of their own cyber-attacks appear to come from anywhere
in the world , Russia obviously included. This is clearly vital information.
Third, the multitasking. When you splash a huge red lie on your front pages, it's always
best to make it serve several agendas at once. In fact, an unsupported statement which serves
multiple state-backed narratives at the same time is one of the telltale signs of
propaganda.
With this one completely unverified claim, the Guardian – or rather the people who
tell the Guardian what to say – back up three narratives:
The further demonisation of
an "enemy". Russia is portrayed as pursuing "selfish interests with reckless
behaviour" , whilst we (and our allies) are "getting on with the hard work of finding
a vaccine and protecting global health." Promoting the vaccine. The vaccine is coming. It
will likely be mandatory, it will certainly have been insufficiently tested, if tested at all.
They need some pro-vaccine advertising, and nothing sells better than "our vaccine is so good,
people are trying to steal it". Most importantly – Enhancing the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is
a unique global threat which puts us all in danger. The unspoken assumption is that Russia
needs to steal our research because the virus is so dangerous we all need to be afraid of it
despite it being
harmless to the vast majority of people .
Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than
its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern
propaganda works.
As it was anti-Russian I expected it to be accompanied with a Luke Harding byline but this
is from the Defence and Security Editor, Dan Sabbagh, Harding, as well as being a plagiarist,
has written four anti-Russian books including "Collusion" about how Russia helped Donald Trump
get into power (using the discredited Steele dossier as his main source). Here Aaron Mate
interviews him leaving him totally uncomfortable by the end.
It's all so dumb and fraudulent . Not worthy of anyone's attention who may possess a few
brain cells. Those who serve up this shit in the name of journalism should be sent back to
primary school for some basic education . Really, we have had enough of this crap from
American morons ever since the Cold War era and here we have the same corrupt media parroting
exactly the same dross about those evil Russians . This scum need a history lesson for had it
not been for Russia's sacrifice and bravery in WW2 these cretins would not be sitting on
their arses writing this dross. This ongoing malevolent campaign against Russia is extremely
disturbing and has all the hallmarks of a psychopathic mindset and all coming from a nation
whose main "industry" is the production of weaponry and who is responsible for the deaths of
between 20 to 30 million people, directly and indirectly since the end of WW2.
Eyes Open , Jul 16, 2020 10:35 PM
It's so obvious the media are pulling a 'dog in a manger' psyop on us. Ie. 'oh no! I never
wanted the vaccine in the first place, but the Russians want to steal ours, so all of a
sudden I want my vaccine' etc.
Most likely Gate's vaccines will cause harm to some, so take them all I say. (My
condolences to the Russians.)
This video – from the horse's mouth. Notice the duping delight:
"Russian vaccine hack"
So the CORPORATE FASCISTS are saying that the Russian Federation got its vaccine against the
CORPORATE FASCIST MASS HYSTERIA FEAR PANIC FRENZY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN by hacking? This is not
going to end well for the OLIGARCH MOBSTER PSYCHOPATHS.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:35 PM Reply to
S Cooper
"For The Record" (spitfirelist.com) began reporting 4 or 5 years ago that all the
Russiagate baloney, hacks of Hillary et al., was a CIA inside job ~ and related matters like
it, long before that ~ referring listeners to much evidence that CIA cyber-technology had
long been working on black op devices that could hack while leaving "Russian" or "CCP"
digital fingerprints, etc., all the one-trick pony of ceaseless false-flaggery that our Intel
has been using for years, for nearly everything. And that stuff isn't really new.
Oliver Stone interviewed Putin for 4 hrs a couple years ago, carried by cable here, and
asked him point blank, "Did your agencies hack the DP?" Or words to that effect.
And he answered merely, "That was an internal affair of yours."
Of course, VP is a high spymaster himself, it would seem one of the best, ever, and no
stranger to purposeful misdirection certainly, but by the same token of his eminence in that
global realm, he is well supported by the evidence.
Especially, "If past is prologue " and all of its preponderance? Endless .
S Cooper , Jul 17, 2020 12:40 AM Reply to
John Ervin
The aspect which most concerns me is the no holds barred publicly funded sales and
marketing campaign that Psychopath Billy and BIG PHARMA are mounting to find dupes and Guinea
Pigs for their toxic patent medicine snake oil brew. It is going to hurt a lot of people.
"The hack" bull shit fairy tale store is just one of the means employed by those criminal
psychopaths.
John Ervin , Jul 17, 2020 2:16 AM Reply to
S Cooper
Yes indeed, there are many such signs, all of them bad. I don't know why I feel pleased
when I get confirmations of all the worst suspicions, if it only confirms my antennae are
still functioning, whilst being shamed by the brainwashed and the same old headlines . It
should take a lot more or better to please the sensibilities.
I guess it's the sense of vindication, that one can't help but thrill when that terrible
thirst for some reality is slaked.
Or that you have cause to be thankful. Faith tells you this won't last forever, and it's a
real gift that you weren't fooled.
But it can still feel like "cold comfort" when "almost" everyone you see or know, is.
Too many take the bit too nicely. What good does that do?
It shows up a pale country, too dead, as living only in the flesh, really, too numb in the
spirit, not vigilant.
About to be rolled!
voxpox , Jul 16, 2020 9:25 PM
I like this article, it says it all. I have also long harbored a theory that the US
intelligence are behind most of the worlds financial cyber-crime, systematically fleecing the
world to fund their many many operations around the world. They have the tech with Windows
back-doors, the motivation to hide 'off the book' operations and a proven lack of morals as
demonstrated during the Iran–Contra affair, many years ago. but what do I know. As Bill
Maher says, 'I can't prove it but I know it's true'.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:59 PM Reply to
voxpox
The USA foreign policy shows a penchant for amoral deceptiveness of ALL other countries,
even best allies, chronically.
So that gives heft to Bill Maher's maxim.
Perennial treaty busters and oath breakers, why would anyone trust?
Fool me once etc.
That's at the core of my take on all USA has said about C-19(84). Been there, done that,
with 100 other false flags, always the same tune.
The boy who cried wolf: Uncle Scam.
Always proven false after all the marbles are stolen. Or at some point down the road. If
not, it shall be, like the JFK fiasco. Like the lone holdout among nations on the Napalm Ban,
or sole rogue to drop an A bomb (75th Anniversary of that cowardly Holocaust coming up in a
few weeks.)
Lone, lone, lone.
A sad little homeboy in the Land of the Lone Gunman. So many, though. Too many, for the
world's good .
~~~~~~~~~£4£&$4$
Don't take it from me, though, I'm a total patriot, really, compared to Mr. Gonzo, Hunter
S. Thompson:
"America just a nation of 200 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy
guns and no qualms at all about using them on anybody else in the world who tries to make us
uncomfortable."
Hunter always said it like it is, at least at yhr time he saw it, he rode with the Hell's
Angels and wrote the 1st book about them, and wasn't much shy about calling a spade a
spade.
And. Like my own old man: another highly assisted apparent suicide.
Honour among thieves – he says he didn't mean to steal, it was a mistake, and they
conduct an investigation on the down-low so the press doesn't get wind of it, or is warned
that it should not. The same cooperative that solemnly preaches western morality, and
screeches 'Russia!!!' as soon as anything happens before it can be attributed to someone
else. I think I understand Russia a little better every time something like this happens
– it's a honour to be hated by such a crooked and wretched entity, and approbation by
the same would be an implication that one has as little a sense of values.
On June 19, 1920 the Soviet government led by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky established
the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Liquidation of Illiteracy (Cheka
Likbez).
The organisation played an important role in leading the campaign to wipe out illiteracy
within the Soviet Union, eliminating one of the most damaging legacies of Tsarist
backwardness and poverty. The Soviet literacy campaign remains the largest and most
successful in world history. Historian Ben Eklof noted: "There is good reason to conclude
that in 22 years (1917-39), the Soviet Union had accomplished what it took Britain, France,
and Germany at least a hundred years to do."[1]
The Soviet literacy campaign serves as an enduring demonstration of the extraordinary
possibilities for reorganising society in the interests of the working class on a planned,
socialist basis.
"An illiterate person is like one who is blind. Accidents and misfortune
await him everywhere"
The campaign's achievements stand in stark contrast to the global illiteracy that
continues to plague humanity under capitalism in the 21st century. According to UNESCO
statistics, at least 750 million people are illiterate, with 100 million of these people aged
between 5-24. Most are in the former colonial regions of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
In addition, however, within the advanced capitalist countries, access to proper literacy
education opportunities is under threat as austerity and privatisation measures restrict
access to adequately funded public education. In the United States, multiple law suits have
sought to establish the as yet unrecognised constitutional right to literacy.
In 1917, when the Bolshevik Party overthrew the bourgeois provisional government and
established the world's first workers state, the revolutionary government confronted mass
illiteracy across the former Tsarist empire. An 1897 census reported that just 21 percent of
adults could read, though that was almost certainly an exaggerated figure given that anyone
who could sign their name and who claimed to be able to read was counted as literate.[2] In
the last two decades of the Tsarist regime the literacy rate increased somewhat, in parallel
with the rising urban population, but by 1917 a large majority of the country's 150 million
people remained unable to read.
Tsarist authorities regarded the growth of literacy with suspicion and fear. In the early
19th century, Tsar Alexander I's minister of instruction declared: "Knowledge is only useful,
when like salt, it is used and offered in small measures according to the people's
circumstances and their needs. To teach the mass of people, or even the majority of them, how
to read will bring more harm than good."[3]
Exactly the opposite conception was advanced by the revolutionary government led by the
Bolshevik Party.
Vladimir Lenin
The elimination of illiteracy was understood to be the essential prerequisite for the
assimilation of culture and knowledge that was required by the working class to begin to
construct a socialist society. Lenin, in his classic work written on the eve of the October
insurrection, State and Revolution , explained that the great majority of state
administrative functions could be performed by "any literate person" (emphasis added),
with universal literacy therefore a basic prerequisite for a workers state in which "the door
will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its
higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state."[4]
After the October Revolution, Lenin emphasised: "The illiterate person stands outside
politics. First it is necessary to teach him the alphabet. Without it there are only rumours,
fairy tales and prejudices -- but not politics."
The rapid acquisition of universal literacy was an immediate educational priority for the
Soviet government. Just three days after the completion of the Bolshevik-led insurrection, on
October 29, 1917 (November 11 on the new calendar), the newly appointed commissar for
education, Anatoly Lunacharsky, issued "An Address to the Citizens of Russia" that
explained:
Any truly democratic authority in the educational sphere of a country where illiteracy
and ignorance are rife must make its first task that of combatting this atmosphere of
gloom. It must, in the shortest period of time, try to achieve universal literacy by
organising a network of schools that satisfy the requirements of contemporary education and
by introducing universal, compulsory, free education. The fight against illiteracy and
ignorance cannot be confined merely to organising proper school teaching for children,
adolescents and young persons. Adults too will want to be rescued from the humiliation of
being unable to read or write. Schools for adults must occupy a prominent place in the
general plan of education.[5]
In December 1919, Lenin signed a nine-point decree titled "The Elimination of Illiteracy
among the Population of the Russian Soviet Republic."
Hundreds of thousands of copies of the decree were distributed across the country. It
explained that, "for the purpose of giving the entire population of the Republic the
opportunity for conscious participation in the country's political life," the Soviet
government was making it obligatory for everyone between 8 and 50 years of age to learn to
read and write in Russian or their native language, according to their choice.
The Commissariat of Education was given the power "to recruit, for teaching the
illiterate, the country's entire literate population which has not been called to war, as a
labour responsibility." It became a criminal offence for a literate person not to teach at
least one illiterate how to read (though no-one was ever prosecuted for this). Illiterate
workers were given two hours a day off work, on full wages, to study.
The June 1920 formation of the Extraordinary Commission for the Liquidation of Illiteracy
aimed at advancing the practical implementation of the 1919 decree.
One historian summed up its role as follows:
This was an organisational mechanism to handle co-ordination and collaboration with all
other organs of the government and the [Communist] Party, as well as public organisations
and voluntary associations. The Commission included representatives of various state and
public organisations and had extensive powers and functions; these included motivational
work among the masses, registration of illiterates, elaboration of methods of instruction
and production of primers and other textbooks, and recruitment of teachers and supervisors
to implement the programme.[6]
The organisation's decisions were binding for all government institutions and public
employees. It was known in abbreviated form as the Cheka Likbez, underscoring its importance
to the revolution through the echo of the name of the Extraordinary Commission for Combating
Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, or Cheka, the security agency organised to defeat
counterrevolutionary efforts to overthrow the Soviet government.
The Extraordinary Commission for the Liquidation of Illiteracy was organised under the
Commissariat of Education's Main Administration for Political Education (Glavpolitprosvet),
led by Nadezhda Krupskaya. Sometimes dismissed by bourgeois historians as nothing other than
Lenin's wife, Krupskaya was in fact an important revolutionist in her own right. Before the
revolution, she had spent time working as a teacher and had made an extensive study of
educational theorists. Her educational writings comprise multiple volumes, only a small
fraction of which has been translated into English.
Collaborating closely with Lenin and Lunacharsky, Krupskaya in the 1920s developed many of
the extraordinary initiatives in schooling and adult education that became renowned among
educators internationally.
Red Army literacy campaigns
The Extraordinary Commission for the Liquidation of Illiteracy did not begin its work from
scratch in 1920. Early Bolshevik efforts to eradicate illiteracy developed amid conditions of
civil war, after counterrevolutionary forces, backed by European and American imperialist
states, attacked the Soviet government. The campaign centred on the Red Army, which under
Trotsky's leadership mobilised millions of workers and peasants between 1918 and 1921 in
defence of the revolution.
Leon Trotsky
"Literacy is far from being everything, literacy is only a clean window onto the world,
the possibility of seeing, understanding, knowing," Trotsky explained in a 1922 speech at the
Moscow Soviet. "This possibility we must give them [Red Army soldiers], and before everything
else."
He continued:
Our preparation is, above all, preparation, in the soldier, of the revolutionary
citizen. We have to raise our young men in the army to a higher level, and, first and
foremost, to rid them decisively and finally of the shameful stain of illiteracy. ... You,
the Moscow Soviet, you, the district brigades and schools -- the Red Army asks you, the Red
Army expects of you, that you will not let anyone remain illiterate among your "s ons " in
the great family you have adopted. You will give them teachers, you will help them master
the elementary technical means whereby a man can become a conscious citizen.[7]
Few details of the literacy campaign within the Red Army escaped Trotsky's scrutiny. In
early 1919, for example, amid some of the fiercest campaigns of the civil war, he took the
time to write a scathing review of a compilation of literature and political material. "The
general-education section attached to the military department of the Central Executive
Committee has issued a First Reading-Book for use by the soldiers," he wrote. "I do not know
who compiled this book, but I can clearly see that it was someone who, in the first place,
did not know the people for whom he was compiling it; who, secondly, had a poor understanding
of the matters he was writing about; and who, thirdly, was not well acquainted with the
Russian language. And these qualities are not sufficient for the compilation of a First
Reading-Book for our soldiers."[8]
Compulsory teaching was introduced for all ranks in April 1918.[9] Teachers who
volunteered for the literacy campaign on the front quickly discovered that they had to
abandon pre-revolutionary teaching methods. Krupskaya wrote about the experience of one
teacher, Dora El'kina, a former Socialist Revolutionary who joined the Bolsheviks after the
revolution: "El'kina began to teach them, as was the custom, from textbooks written on the
basis of the analytical-synthetic [phonics] method: 'Masha ate kasha. Masha washed the
window.' 'How are you teaching us?' protested Red Army men. 'What's all this about kasha?
Who's this Masha? We don't want to read that.'"[10]
El'kina initially attempted to continue by discussing why the soldiers could not be with
their Mashas and why there was a shortage of kasha. But she then wrote a new sentence of her
own, which was subsequently published as the opening line of a new literacy book, becoming
famous in Soviet Russia as the first words read by millions of newly literate workers and
peasants -- "We are not slaves; slaves we are not."
El'kina and the co-authors of her book, titled Down with Illiteracy , explained in
their preface the connection between acquiring the ability to read and the development of
socialist consciousness: "We know that political work is not limited to clarifying slogans,
just as teaching is not limited to instruction in reading and writing. But this book allows
us to introduce the student to both. We regard the acquisition of political literacy and
learning how to read to be interwoven goals. Students should not only be taught educational
skills, but we should also pique their interest in public life. Students should not only
assume their place in society as educated people, but they also should join the ranks of the
fighters and builders of Soviet Russia."[11]
Other early literacy initiatives included the recruitment of artists and writers,
including Vladimir Mayakovsky, to develop simple and appealing first readers and alphabet
books.
Aiming to develop the new found literacy abilities of millions of Red Army fighters, the
Soviet government devoted substantial resources, including precious foreign currency
reserves, to the provision of reading materials, despite chronic difficulties in sourcing
paper, ink, and means of publishing texts. According to one survey of the Red Army's work, in
1920 soldiers had been supplied with 20 million pamphlets, leaflets and posters, 5.6 million
books, and 300,000 to 400,000 copies of newspapers a day.[12]
Eliminating illiteracy in
the working class and peasantry
The Extraordinary Commission for the Liquidation of Illiteracy developed a series of
initiatives in the factories and workplaces to ensure that all workers, including those who
had just arrived from the countryside, could read.
Literacy centres or schools ( likpunkty , "liquidation points") were established
across the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Larger factories and workplaces had their own literacy
centres and libraries. As early as November 1920, the Extraordinary Commission had
established 12,067 literacy centres, teaching 278,637 students.[13] Between 1920 and 1928, a
total of 8.2 million people attended literacy schools.[14]
In line with the directive of Lenin's 1919 decree, workers unable to read and write were
given reduced shifts on full pay for daily study. Workers were also encouraged to attend
classes taught by volunteers on Sunday. Literacy courses often culminated in public
celebrations timed to coincide with revolutionary anniversaries -- some workers' courses
first semester concluded on January 21 (the date of Lenin's death in 1924) and second
semester on May 1 (May Day).[15]
"Books (Please)! In All Branches of Knowledge," Poster
for state publishers (Alexander Rodchenko, 1924)
Literacy courses had high expectations of the enrolled workers. Far from the old Tsarist
standard of a literate person being one who could sign their name, the Extraordinary
Commission for the Liquidation of Illiteracy explained that a 3-4 month literacy centre
course provided only a "key" to literacy, with a worker who participated in such a course for
two hours each working day to be regarded as only "semi-literate." A longer, 6-8 month course
involving at least 6-8 hours of study each week was necessary as a precondition for genuine
literacy.[16]
In 1923, the Extraordinary Commission's work was expanded through the formation of the
Down with Illiteracy society, a mass organisation led by the Communist Party. By October
1924, 1.6 million Soviet citizens had joined.[17] The society organised volunteer literacy
teachers, distributed anti-illiteracy campaign posters, and raised money for the publication
and distribution of pamphlets and books. It also organised regular literacy festivals and
campaigns. One three-day campaign, beginning on May Day, 1925, involved the organisation of
public plays, films and other public art, mass graduations from literacy centre courses, and
the organisation of "agitational streetcars," distributing brochures and popularising slogans
from Lenin ("We have three tasks: first, to study, second, to study, and third, to study")
and Trotsky ("We will create a thick network of schools everywhere in the Russian land. There
should be no illiterates. There should be no ignorant workers.").[18]
Results varied in different industries throughout the 1920s. Illiteracy persisted in
workplaces that absorbed former peasants who moved to the cities, especially women, such as
the textile industry. In other sectors it was wiped out, including among metal, print and
rail workers. By the end of 1924, literacy rates among rail workers were reportedly as high
as 99 percent, with all of the remaining illiterates enrolled in literacy centre courses. In
1928, the rail workers union developed plans to eliminate illiteracy among the estimated
93,000 spouses and family members of their worker members.[19]
Within the peasantry, the campaign for universal literacy was more protracted and
difficult. Serfdom had been abolished in Russia only 56 years before the October Revolution
and religious superstition and different kinds of backwardness still afflicted the peasantry.
Women were especially affected, and they were substantially more illiterate than men
throughout the former Tsarist Empire. In the villages, boys were typically educated before
girls. "We have full equality of men and women here," Trotsky noted in 1924. "But for a woman
to have the real opportunities that a man has, even now in our poverty, women must equal men
in literacy. The 'woman problem' here, then, means first of all the struggle with female
illiteracy."[20]
An initial boost to the campaign came with the demobilisation of the Red Army at the end
of the civil war, as the number of troops reduced from 5.5 million to 800,000. Millions of
newly literate peasants returned to their villages and taught their family members how to
read.[21]
"May darkness disappear, long live the sun!"
Across the vast Russian countryside in the 1920s, the Soviet government established a
network of village reading rooms ( izba-chital'nia , literally "reading hut"). During
the civil war, more than 20,000 reading rooms were established, approximately one for every
five villages. The number initially declined when the New Economic Policy forced cuts in
government expenditure. Limited resources affected every aspect of the fight against
illiteracy. One reading room established in Tambov county in 1923, for example, had reading
materials consisting only of the regional newspaper, a pamphlet on political economy and
Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky's ABC of Communism .[22] There were also
protracted difficulties in securing sufficiently educated workers to run the reading
rooms.
"The goal of the reading rooms is to make the reading of the newspaper a keenly felt need
for each poor and middle peasant," Krupskaya explained. "They must be drawn to the newspaper
as the drunk is to wine. If the reading room can accomplish this, it will have done a great
thing."[23]
The rooms did more, however, than merely make newspapers available. They developed as
vehicles of literacy and culture, breaking down the isolation and backwardness of traditional
peasant life. A December 1925 survey reported 6,392 "socio-political circles" convening in
reading rooms, with 123,000 members. Larger still were "agro-economic circles" (7,000 circles
with 136,000 members) and "drama/theatre circles" (9,400 circles with 185,000
members).[24]
New technologies were utilised to promote the value of learning to read and write. Where
radios could be purchased for the village reading room, attendance increased sharply and in
some regions had to be restricted to different groups of people on different days.[25] In
addition, by April 1926, 976 travelling film groups were each visiting 20 villages a month.
One historian explained: "Literate peasants introduced the films and used them as stimuli to
create a demand for further information through books."[26]
Children's literacy
education
The Soviet literacy campaign was always affected by limited financial resources. The
Bolsheviks had established a workers' government in October 1917 with the perspective that
this would be the first shot in the world revolution. The spread of the revolution to the
advanced capitalist countries, beginning with Germany and other European centres, was eagerly
anticipated, not least because of the prospect of alleviating Russia's economic backwardness
through the sharing of financial resources and industrial technique. In Germany, however, in
1918–1919 and again in 1923, revolutionary upheavals ended in bourgeois
counterrevolution, as did working-class uprisings in other European countries.
The immense economic backwardness of Russia was compounded by the impact of the civil war
and imperialist onslaught. In 1921, the Extraordinary Commission for the Liquidation of
Illiteracy issued a pamphlet outlining short-term literacy courses, which featured one
chapter titled, "How to get by without paper, pencils, or pens."[27]
Anatoly Lunacharsky
Poverty and shortages especially affected the development of the Soviet school system in
this period. One American educator who visited the USSR in 1925 described the situation:
It would be hard to find poorer equipment than that in many of the Soviet institutions.
Buildings are old. Benches are worn out. Blackboards and books are lacking. Teachers and
other educational workers are badly paid -- sometimes, for months, unpaid. Only about half
the children of school age in the Soviet Union can be accommodated in the schools.
Lunacharsky, People's Commissar for Education, estimates that the Union is now short of
25,000 teachers. Even if they had these teachers, they would have no rooms in which to put
them. Probably there is no large country in Europe where educational conditions are
physically worse than they are in the Soviet Union.[28]
Despite these immense challenges, the early Soviet Union developed the world's most
innovative and progressive approaches to teaching and learning.
The Educational Act of October 1918 abolished the old, Church-dominated education
administrative system that was geared towards the Tsarist elite and advanced the principle of
freely accessible, secular education from primary to tertiary levels, developed as a "United
Labour School." A historian has explained that this Act reflected a consensus within the
Commissariat of Education for "a school system with the following features: a single type of
school, the United Labour School, providing nine years of polytechnical education as well as
shoes, clothing, hot breakfasts, medical care, and academic materials free of charge to all
children regardless of gender or social origin; little or no homework; no standard textbooks,
promotion, or graduation examinations or grades (marks); socially useful exercises as part of
the standard curriculum (care of public parks, campaigns against assorted evils from
illiteracy to religion and alcohol); the study and practice of labour from modelling in the
earlier grades to work in a school shop or plot in later grades, perhaps even a practicum in
a factory for senior pupils; and self-government to teach school in which the public,
parents, and pupils would play a vital role."[29]
While not all of these commitments were immediately met, given the material shortages, the
Soviet Union nevertheless became a laboratory of pedagogical experimentation.
"Our socialist country is striving for the reconciliation of physical and mental labour,
which is the only thing that can lead to the harmonious development of man," Trotsky
explained in a 1924 speech, "A Few Words on How to Raise a Human Being." He continued: "Such
is our program. The program gives only general directions for this: it points a finger,
saying 'Here is the general direction of your path!' But the program does not say how to
attain this union in practice. In this field, as in many others, we shall go and are going
already by way of experience, research, and experiments, knowing only the general direction
of the road to the goal: as correct as possible a combination of physical and mental
labour."[30]
Children's literacy learning changed substantially in many schools after the revolution.
The Tsarist system, for the minority of children able to access it at all, had featured
authoritarian, rote-learning methods, with grammar and other aspects of the reading and
writing processes taught without any connections to other aspects of the curriculum, let
alone to the child's environment and interests.
Soviet schools, on the other hand, were encouraged to adopt an integrated curriculum and
teach reading and writing through engagement with, and exploration of, society and the
natural world. Krupskaya incorporated the approaches developed by progressive American
educators in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, developing them on the basis of a
Marxist understanding of human society and the productive process. This became known as the
"complex method," with teachers planning children's literacy and numeracy learning within the
framework of three "complexes" -- nature, labour and society. The closest connections were
encouraged between schools and their communities, with frequent excursions and research
projects on neighbouring factories or farms.
Krupskaya explained: "The first stage [of school] aims to give children the most necessary
skills and knowledge for work activity and cultural life and to awaken their interest in
their surroundings. It should not be forgotten that language and mathematics must play a
purely functional role in the first stage. Their study as separate branches of knowledge in
the first stage is premature. Study of their mother tongue and mathematics must, therefore,
have a modern character, which is closely tied to a child's observations and
activities."[31]
Nadezhda Krupskaya (Tsarist police images, 1896)
Writing on the development of Soviet education in the 1920s, American journalist William
Henry Chamberlin reported:
The most striking and novel educational experiments are to be found in the lower and
middle Soviet schools. Old-fashioned teaching methods, with every subject placed in a
water-tight compartment and taught separately, have been completely discarded. I witnessed
a practical application of this [complex] method in a Moscow school, named after President
Kalinin. The given theme was 'The City of Moscow.' The history lesson was based on past
events in the life of the city. Some geographical ideas were imparted by taking the
children to the Moscow River and showing them what are islands, shores, and peninsulas,
etc. Arithmetic had its turn when the children turned out in a body to measure the block
nearest the school and make various calculations regarding its relation to the city as a
whole. From time to time they visited factories, museums, and historical monuments. The
purely scholastic method is anathema in Soviet pedagogy. Every effort is made to give the
pupils some concrete and visible representation of the things which they are
studying.[32]
The 1930s and the impact of Stalinism
The isolation of the Soviet state, a consequence of the defeats suffered by the working
class in western and central Europe in the years after World War I, together with the
country's enormous poverty and social inequality, gave rise to a new bureaucratic caste. In
the early 1920s, this privileged social layer became increasingly self-satisfied and
conservative and lined up behind Joseph Stalin after he unveiled in 1924 the nationalist
perspective of "socialism in one country."
This was directly aimed against the theory of permanent revolution, which Trotsky
developed amid the 1905 revolutionary upheavals in Russia and which was the basis on which
the Bolshevik Party seized power in 1917. Trotsky analysed that the tasks of the democratic
revolution in Russia -- including the elimination of Tsarism and all remnants of feudal
backwardness -- could only be advanced through the taking forward of the socialist
revolution, led by the working class. The workers would lead the revolution and, once in
power, Trotsky correctly anticipated, would be compelled to take into public ownership the
commanding heights of the economy and institute socialist measures, including state planning.
However, given Russia's immense economic backwardness, the victory of the revolution
ultimately depended on its development internationally, above all in the advanced capitalist
countries.
The bureaucracy came to identify the theory of permanent revolution and the fight for
world socialist revolution as a threat to its interests. Trotsky recalled in his
autobiography: "The sentiment of 'Not all for the revolution, but something for oneself as
well,' was translated as 'Down with the permanent revolution.' The revolt against the
exacting theoretical demands of Marxism and the exacting political demands of the revolution
gradually assumed, in the eyes of the people, the form of a struggle against
'Trotskyism'."[33]
Trotsky and the Left Opposition fought a determined and principled campaign in defence of
the revolution and its internationalist perspective. The Stalinist bureaucracy responded with
a ferocious campaign of slander, historical falsifications, factional manoeuvres and violent
state repression. Krupskaya, who briefly joined the Opposition before capitulating to Stalin,
noted in 1926 that if Lenin had then been alive he would have been jailed by the new regime.
After the Left Opposition organised demonstrations within the official rallies in 1927 for
the 10th anniversary of the October revolution in Moscow and Leningrad, unfurling banners in
defence of soviet democracy and internationalism, the Stalinists expelled Trotsky and other
oppositionists from the Communist Party and sent them into internal exile. Trotsky was
expelled from the USSR in 1929, and assassinated while in exile in Mexico in 1940, two years
after he founded the Fourth International.
The Stalinist counterrevolution had a devastating impact on education and pedagogy, as it
did in every other area of culture.
Lunacharsky was forced out of the Commissariat of Education in 1929. The Marx-Engels
Institute of Marxist Pedagogy was disbanded in 1932. Also that year, Stanislav Shatsky was
removed from his position as head of the "First Experimental Station," a network of
progressive child and adult educational centres that had also served as a teacher training
hub. Shatsky had collaborated closely with Krupskaya in the 1920s, and his school network had
been visited by numerous appreciative Western educators, including the American philosopher
and pedagogue John Dewey. The Stalinist regime in the 1930s elevated as
national-educator-in-chief Anton Makarenko, a previously obscure administrator of GPU secret
police-operated "colonies" for orphaned and homeless children. These were run as
military-style boot camps, with students spending as much time working on assembly lines
producing drills and cameras as they did learning in classrooms.
In the early 1930s, a series of Central Committee resolutions and government edicts
condemned educational "experimentation," prohibited the complex method, effectively junked
any commitment to polytechnism, abolished student democracy in favour of principal and
teacher authority, imposed mandatory school uniforms, and wound back school autonomy in
favour of centralised state control.[34] Teachers were rewarded for increasing their
students' individual test scores, while exams were introduced for students entering each year
level. Authoritarianism saturated every aspect of the education system. A "Rules for Conduct"
was issued for every primary and secondary school -- they included commands for students to
"obey the instructions of the school manager and the teachers without question," to "rise
when the teacher or director enters or leaves the room," and to "stand to attention when
answering the teacher; to sit down only with the teacher's permission; to raise his hand if
he wishes to answer a question."
In his masterpiece analysis, The Revolution Betrayed , Trotsky in 1937 noted that
the new generation in the Soviet Union was emerging "under intolerable and constantly
increasing oppression." He added: "In the factory, the collective farm, the barracks, the
university, the schoolroom, even in the kindergarten, if not in the creche, the chief glory
of man is declared to be: personal loyalty to the leader and unconditional obedience. Many
pedagogical aphorisms and maxims of recent times might seem to have been copied from
Goebbels, if he himself had not copied them in good part from the collaborators of
Stalin."[35]
Article continues below the form Join the fight to defend public
education!
Submit
The campaign for universal literacy was, inevitably, adversely affected by the Stalinist
counterrevolution.
At the same moment that the Soviet Union was on the verge of wiping out illiteracy, the
Stalin regime relentlessly propagated lies and historical falsification. The "big lie" of
Stalinism -- that Stalin represented the continuity of Lenin's leadership of the Bolshevik
Party, and that Trotsky and the theory of permanent revolution were enemies of the working
class -- assumed monstrous proportions during the 1936-1938 purges and show trials. Virtually
every one of Lenin and Trotsky's comrades other than Stalin was accused of being a spy, a
fascist or a provocateur. Historical falsification was institutionalised in the schools,
universities and party education institutions, and any teacher or student who objected to the
regime's crude lies was subject to imprisonment or execution.
In such conditions, the development of genuine literacy -- understood as more than the
simple ability to read words on a page, instead involving critical-minded engagement with
texts -- was all but impossible.
A historian noted that the 1930s campaigns "produced a sharp rise in the national literacy
rate, but at the expense of true education as Lenin had understood it. The chief aim was an
economic and not a cultural one -- to provide a barely literate mass labour force as fast as
possible for employment in the Five-Year Plans."[36]
Krupskaya, despite her accommodation to the Stalinist regime, acknowledged that the
literacy campaign work in the late 1920s and early 1930s had "helped millions of people to
read and write, but the knowledge gained was of the most elementary kind."[37] One survey
indicated a significant decrease in the time that workers spent reading in the 1930s. Between
1923 and 1939, the average time that city workers devoted to reading newspapers each week
declined from 2.3 to 1.8 hours, and the time spent reading books and periodicals from 2.1 to
1.0 hours.[38]
Stalinism also affected the literacy campaign work among the non-Russian nationalities,
which comprised around half the population of the Soviet Union. Some of the nationalities
were pre-literate societies at the time of the October Revolution, and in others literacy
rates were very low. In the 1920s, in order to allow people to become literate in their
native language, Soviet linguists, as one account describes, "diagrammed and codified
alphabets, grammars and vocabularies for the whole range of Northern Caucasus, Turkic and
Finno-Ugric peoples." In addition: "Narkompros [the Commissariat of Education] retooled
dozens of academic institutes and created new ones (the Central Institute of Living Eastern
Languages, the Institute of Orientology, the All-Union Association of Orientology, the
Communist University of the Workers of the East) in order to prepare linguistic studies,
alphabets, dictionaries, school texts, and native language cadres for work in the
east."[39]
Stalin's promotion of great-Russian chauvinism hindered these initiatives -- in the 1930s
Cyrillic scripts were imposed on those nationalities that had previously developed use of the
Latin alphabet. Some newly literate workers and peasants had to relearn how to read their own
language in Cyrillic. In addition, learning Russian was made mandatory in school from
1938.
Despite these Stalinist hindrances on the literacy campaign, the number of people who
could read and write significantly increased in the 1930s. As Trotsky analysed, the
bureaucratic caste usurped political power from the working class in Soviet Union, but it
retained the state monopoly of foreign trade and public ownership of the means of production.
The USSR remained a workers state, although a severely degenerated one. As such, the state
was capable of planning and distributing vast resources as part of the literacy campaign.
Ensuring that many more workers and peasants could read and write was an essential
requirement of the industrialisation drive. Stalin's industrialisation and forced
collectivisation of the peasantry -- sharply condemned by Trotsky and the Left Opposition for
its needlessly violent and reckless character -- saw a sharp increase in the Soviet Union's
urban population. Forced collectivisation, while having a devastating economic impact,
allowed literacy teaching within a now more concentrated peasant population. The Komsomol,
Communist youth organisation, was mobilised to assist the literacy campaign in the
countryside. Between 1931 and 1933, 50,000 Komsomol members taught in schools, although most
of these and other young teachers lacked any formal qualifications.[40]
Worker enrolment in literacy centre courses increased. Significant resources were devoted
in the 1930s to ensure universal schooling for children. Between 1927 and 1932, the number of
school teachers doubled, increasing by 230,000. Student numbers for grades 1-7 increased from
11 million in 1927-1928 to 21 million in 1932-1933, with 8 million of this increased
enrolment being in rural schools' early grade levels. One historian has noted that this
"increase of 8 million in rural schools exceeded the entire primary school enrolment in the
Russian Empire in 1914."[41]
Conclusion
A 1939 USSR census demonstrated that illiteracy was then in the process of being entirely
wiped out, just 22 years after the October revolution. For those aged between 9 and 49 years,
87.4 percent were literate. The literacy rate remained higher in the cities than in the
countryside, and higher among men than women. The urban male literacy rate was 97.1 percent,
and the urban female rate 90.7 percent.[42] Some of the most extraordinary gains in literacy
were recorded in the non-Russian Soviet republics. In the Central Asian region of Turkmenia,
for example, literacy rates increased from less than 8 percent, recorded in the 1897 census,
to 78 percent in 1939.[43]
"If You Don't Read Books, You'll Soon Forget How to Read and
Write"
The literacy campaign laid the basis for the deeply cultured character of Soviet society.
Notwithstanding the Stalinist regime's censorship and repression, the Soviet population
revered literature, poetry and the arts. More immediately, the literacy campaign also
undoubtedly played a role in the military campaign against Nazi Germany between 1941-1945, in
which an estimated 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives. The tens of millions of
Soviet men drafted into the army between 1941 and 1945, and men and women who staffed the
armaments factories, were capable of following and issuing written instructions. The mass
mobilisation of the entire population for the fight against fascism would likely have been
made even more costly had there not been near-universal literacy.
From today's perspective, the Soviet literacy campaign remains an extraordinary
achievement. The world crisis of capitalism brings with it a stepped-up assault on public
education and the ability of the working class to access culture. In the United States and
other countries, the coronavirus pandemic is being used as a pretext to slash spending on
public education. Chronic shortages of resources in public schools across the world,
including in the advanced capitalist countries -- together with appalling working conditions
for teachers and mandated regressive pedagogical methods -- threaten to deny the younger
generation their right of acquiring a genuine, critical literacy. No doubt among the
financial oligarchs and their political hirelings there is a similar mindset to that
expressed by the 19th century Tsarist minister of instruction, with literacy and knowledge
for working class youth believed to be a dangerous thing, best restricted.
The defence of universal, high quality literacy, as with the defence of every other aspect
of human culture, again falls to the socialist movement.
References:
[1] Ben Eklof, "Russian Literacy Campaigns 1861-1939," in R.F. Arnove and H.J. Graff
(eds.) National Literacy Campaigns: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (p. 141).
Springer, 1987.
[2] Roger Pethybridge, The Social Prelude to Stalinism . Palgrave Macmillan, 1974,
p. 134.
[3] Cited in Theresa Bach, Educational Changes in Russia . US Government Printing
Office, 1919, p. 4.
[9] Pethybridge, The Social Prelude to Stalinism , op. cit., p. 110.
[10] Cited in V. Protsenko, "Lenin's Decrees on Public Education." Soviet Education
, vol. 3 no. 3, 1961, p. 59.
[11] Cited in I.V. Glushchenko, "The Soviet Educational Project: The Eradication of Adult
Illiteracy in the 1920s–1930s." Russian Social Science Review , vol. 57 no. 5,
September–October 2016, p. 389.
[12] Jeffrey Brooks, "Studies of the Reader in the 1920s." Russian History , vol. 9
nos. 2/3, 1982, p. 189.
[13] Peter Kenez, The Birth of the Propaganda State: Soviet Methods of Mass
Mobilisation , 1917-1929. Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 82.
[14] Ibid., p. 157.
[15] Charles E. Clark, "Literacy and Labour: The Russian Literacy Campaign within the
Trade Unions, 1923-27." Europe-Asia Studies , vol. 47 no. 8, December 1995, p.
1,332.
[16] Ibid., p. 1,328.
[17] Kenez, T he Birth of the Propaganda State , op. cit., p. 154.
[18] Ibid., p. 161.
[19] Clark, "Literacy and Labour," op. cit., p. 1,330.
[20] Leon Trotsky, "Leninism and Library Work," in Problems of Everyday Life .
Pathfinder Press, 1973, p.153
[21] Eklof, "Russian Literacy Campaigns 1861-1939," op. cit., p. 133.
[22] Alexandre Sumpf, "Confronting the Countryside: The Training of Political Educators in
1920s Russia." History of Education , vol. 35 nos. 4-5, p. 479.
[23] Cited in Bradley Owen Jordan, Subject(s) to Change: Revolution as Pedagogy, or
Representations of Education and the Formation of the Russian Revolutionary . PhD thesis,
University of Pennsylvania, 1993, p. 211.
[24] Charles E. Clark, "Uprooting Otherness -- Bolshevik Attempts to Refashion Rural
Russia via the Reading Rooms of the 1920s." Canadian Slavonic Papers , vol. 38 nos.
3/4, September-December 1996, p. 328.
[25] Ibid., p. 324.
[26] Pethybridge, The Social Prelude to Stalinism , op. cit., p. 159.
[27] Eklof, "Russian Literacy Campaigns 1861-1939," op. cit., p. 133.
[28] Scott Nearing, Education in Soviet Russia . International Publishers, 1926, p.
13.
[29] Larry E. Holmes, "Soviet Schools: Policy Pursues Practice, 1921-1928." Slavic
Review , vol. 48 no. 2, Summer 1989, p. 235.
[30] Leon Trotsky, "A Few Words on How to Raise a Human Being," in Problems of Everyday
Life . Pathfinder Press, 1973, pp. 136-137.
[31] Cited in John T. Zepper, "N. K. Krupskaya on Complex Themes in Soviet Education."
Comparative Education Review , vol. 9 no. 1, February 1965, p. 34.
[34] Jon Lauglo, "Soviet Education Policy 1917-1935: From Ideology to Bureaucratic
Control." Oxford Review of Education , vol. 14 no. 3, 1988, pp. 294-295.
I like this article, it says it all. I have also long harbored a theory that the US
intelligence are behind most of the worlds financial cyber-crime, systematically fleecing the
world to fund their many many operations around the world. They have the tech with Windows
back-doors, the motivation to hide 'off the book' operations and a proven lack of morals as
demonstrated during the Iran–Contra affair, many years ago. but what do I know. As Bill
Maher says, 'I can't prove it but I know it's true'.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:59 PM Reply to
voxpox
The USA foreign policy shows a penchant for amoral deceptiveness of ALL other countries,
even best allies, chronically.
So that gives heft to Bill Maher's maxim. Perennial treaty busters and oath breakers, why would anyone trust? Fool me once etc.
That's at the core of my take on all USA has said about C-19(84). Been there, done that,
with 100 other false flags, always the same tune.
The boy who cried wolf: Uncle Scam. Always proven false after all the marbles are stolen. Or at some point down the road. If
not, it shall be, like the JFK fiasco. Like the lone holdout among nations on the Napalm Ban,
or sole rogue to drop an A bomb (75th Anniversary of that cowardly Holocaust coming up in a
few weeks.)
Lone, lone, lone. A sad little homeboy in the Land of the Lone Gunman. So many, though. Too many, for the
world's good .
~~~~~~~~~
Don't take it from me, though, I'm a total patriot, really, compared to Mr. Gonzo, Hunter
S. Thompson:
"America just a nation of 200 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy
guns and no qualms at all about using them on anybody else in the world who tries to make us
uncomfortable."
Hunter always said it like it is, at least at yhr time he saw it, he rode with the Hell's
Angels and wrote the 1st book about them, and wasn't much shy about calling a spade a
spade.
And. Like my own old man: another highly assisted apparent suicide.
Over the last ten years, foreign policy restraint has emerged as the biggest challenger to the U.S. foreign policy status quo.
The persistent failure of policies of endless war and the costly, aggressive pursuit of primacy have left an opening for the alternative
strategy that restraint represents.
As a result, it has also become a natural target for criticism from the defenders of U.S. hegemony. Much of this criticism has
been of the knee-jerk, dismissive variety that critics of American policies are all too familiar with, but there has been some more
serious engagement with the ideas of restrainers as well. Unfortunately, even the more serious engagement with pro-restraint arguments
tends to devolve into polemic.
Michael Mazarr recently wrote an
essay for
the summer issue of The Washington Quarterly in which he identifies what he sees as the failings of the restraint camp. It
is probably the fairest response to arguments for restraint so far, but it does not score any significant hits. It is frustrating
in that it cites the works of leading restrainers, but fails to reckon fully with what they are saying. Mazarr is familiar with restrainers'
arguments, and he makes a number of debaters' points about them, but he doesn't make a persuasive case against restraint.
He identifies what he considers to be restrainers' errors in a few broad categories: 1) a binary definition of the foreign policy
debate; 2) caricaturing U.S. foreign policy as an aggressive drive for primacy; 3) overstating the failures of U.S. post-Cold War
foreign policy; 4) inconsistency in prescription. The first three of these criticisms don't hold up, and the fourth is not a serious
objection to the views of a broad range of writers and analysts.
The first objection is that the restrainers' contrast between primacy/liberal hegemony and restraint is too simplistic. According
to Mazarr, this "overlooks a huge, untidy middle ground where the views of most U.S. national security officials reside and where
most U.S. policies operate." Here he appeals to the diversity of views among foreign policy professionals to counter restrainers'
objections to the current strategy of primacy without actually addressing the pitfalls of primacy that restrainers criticize.
It's not clear that the "huge, untidy middle ground" is as vast or as wild as he suggests. The vast majority of people in that
"middle ground" favor the continued maintenance of U.S. primacy or liberal hegemony. The fact that there is a narrow range of views
among adherents of the current strategy is not surprising. It also isn't terribly relevant to the objections that restrainers have
made against the strategy.
For restrainers, as Mazarr puts it, "the reigning concepts that guide America's role in the world embody a limitless drive for
supremacy and power that has produced an infatuation with militarism and a litany of interventions and wars." That is a fair summary
as far as it goes, but Mazarr never manages to refute this claim.
Consider each part and ask yourself if it rings true. Is the U.S. government guided by a belief that it should pursue supremacy
and power on the world stage? Yes, it is. This is what is euphemistically referred to as American "global leadership." This is as
close to an unquestioned assumption in mainstream foreign policy circles as there is. Has this produced an infatuation with militarism?
Our massive military budget, militarized foreign policy, and intrusive response to many foreign conflicts bear witness that this
is so. Not only is there a bias in favor of action in our debates, but action is almost always defined in terms of military options,
and choosing not to use military options is routinely ridiculed as "doing nothing." Has this infatuation with militarism resulted
in a litany of interventions and wars? We know it has and continues to do so. Mazarr claims that restrainers are using "extreme and
unconditional language" and set up "caricatures and straw people," but, if anything, most pro-restraint arguments are rather mild
in their description of the last few decades of unchecked militarism.
Have restrainers oversold the failure of post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy? It's possible, but I don't think it's true. If U.S.
"leadership" is judged on the terms set by its own advocates, how can we judge it as anything but a failure over the last thirty
years? Has it made the world more stable and secure? On the whole, it has not. The U.S. has been one of the most destabilizing actors
in the world for decades with its wars and interference in other nations' affairs. Has it reduced nuclear proliferation? It has not,
and its wars for regime change have made it more difficult to convince would-be nuclear weapons states to dismantle their weapons
programs.
The biggest effort that the U.S. made in the name of counter-proliferation was a terribly costly blunder and an attack on international
law. Has it reduced the incidence of terrorism? On the contrary, the "war on terror" has exacerbated and encouraged the spread of
jihadist terrorism in the world. Has the U.S. deterred great power competition? Far from it. Mazarr's defense of this record amounts
to saying that it was not as ideological and destructive as it might have been, which is not really much of a defense. Are restrainers
too extreme in their indictment of this record of failure? In light of the persistent denial and whitewashing of the disasters unleashed
by our policies, I would say that we have been too diplomatic.
Mazarr writes that "[t]he restraint literature downplays the often-powerful reluctance with which successive US administrations
have grappled with most decisions to intervene." He mentions Libya as an example of this "hesitancy," but neglects to add that the
internal debate over this lasted just a couple weeks before Obama ordered unauthorized military action to help bring down a foreign
government. Obama's reluctance could not have been that powerful if he chose to start a war against another government without Congressional
approval. When we consider how completely unrelated to U.S. vital interests the conflict in Libya was, the fact that the U.S. did
intervene when it had no particular reason to is proof that restrainers' complaints on this score are backed up by the record.
He touts the fact that the U.S. has "shunned" other opportunities for intervention as if the U.S. does not routinely meddle even
in those conflicts where it does not directly act. The U.S. didn't "act" in the Great Lakes crises in the late '90s and early 2000s
because it had outsourced that crisis to its clients in Uganda and Rwanda, who then proceeded to turn Congo into a charnel house.
The U.S. declined to go to WWIII over territorial disputes between Russia and its neighbors, but the escalation of those disputes
grew out of an incessant, U.S.-led drive to expand Euro-Atlantic institutions to Russia's doorstep. Each example Mazarr cites as
proof that the restrainers are overstating their case just reminds us that not all failures of U.S. foreign policy involve our direct
military intervention in a conflict. It doesn't prove that U.S. foreign policy hasn't failed during the last few decades.
In one of the oddest portions of the essay, he informs us that the U.S. has already adopted the restrainers' agenda with respect
to North Korea and Iran. That will come as news to us and to those two governments. It is misleading at best to claim that the Agreed
Framework and the JCPOA amount to "normalizing" relations with North Korea and ending our "grudge match" with Iran. The idea that
strong opposition to these agreements came only from "hawkish factions in two Republican administration" is simply wrong as a matter
of fact. The hawkish factions were just the loudest and most vehement of the opponents. Agreements like these might be helpful for
laying the groundwork for normal relations in the future, but they are just the start of what many restrainers are calling for.
Having failed to land any serious blows thus far, Mazarr turns to restrainers' prescriptions and points out that there is disagreement
about what U.S. policy should be in many places. Since restraint is a strategy that allows for a range of views about specific policies,
this is to be expected, especially when advocates of restraint have not yet been in a position to implement policy.
Earlier in the essay Mazarr complains that restrainers' language is too extreme and unconditional, and then later he disapproves
of restrainers' use of nuance:
Just which military interventions "do not enhance U.S. security"? Which areas are "of little strategic importance"? What is
an "unrealistic"goal, and how big does a defense budget have to become before it is "bloated"? This same adjectival approach to
analysis crops up again and again in the restraint literature.
These are not serious questions. Mazarr can easily learn from the scholars he is citing what they mean when they say these things,
but instead he quibbles about the reasonable qualifications that they are making. When they make unqualified statements, he condemns
them for lacking nuance, and then he accuses them of waffling when they make qualifications. Most restrainers have been very clear
that the U.S. has vital interests in Europe and East Asia, and that most other regions are not that important for our security. The
military budget's bloat is a function of an overly ambitious strategy that commits the U.S. to defend dozens of countries, most of
which do not need protection or could provide for their own defense. Unrealistic goals include, but are not limited to, compelling
North Korea to disarm, forcing Iran to abolish its nuclear program, and using sanctions to coerce other states into abandoning their
core interests.
Mazarr allows that "[p]roponents of restraint have played and continue to play a critical role in highlighting the risks of overweening
ambition," but he does not think the U.S. should significantly scale back its ambitions. He grants that "rethinking of many key assumptions
of U.S. national security policy is overdue, and proponents of restraint have delivered important warnings," but he doesn't rethink
any key assumptions and proceeds to reject many of these warnings as overwrought. He seems to see restrainers as an occasionally
useful check on the excesses of U.S. interventionism, but nothing more than that.
The failures of the last thirty years stem from an excessively ambitious role for the U.S. that no government could competently
execute. If we want to have a more successful and peaceful foreign policy than we have had for at least the last thirty years, we
need to have a much less ambitious and overreaching one. Restraint is the best answer currently available because it accepts that
the U.S. does not have to dominate and shape the world. It is that drive to dominate and dictate terms to other states that has so
often led the U.S. and other countries down the road to ruin. It is time to choose a different path.
Add to all this the US strategic policy of full spectrum dominance and all the economic wars unleashed by the US.
It appears that the US is moving to add North Stream 2 and Turkish Stream going to Europe on CATSAA. How is this not economic
aggression! In what universe is this right? USSR has built pipelines to Western Europe in the middle of the cold war. And the
State Department insists this is due to strategic considerations, having nothing to do with the US trying to sell LNG to Europe....
It is no wonder such news are not really making the news in the US, because that would really sound weird to any Joe 6 pack...
You can win all the intellectual arguments you want (and the arguments are easy to win, at least on any terms other than those
of a full-blown sociopath who isn't even bothering to hide it) - the people of influence and authority still get the wars they
crave.
Unless and until the United States either is utterly humiliated in a major war or faces economic collapse, nothing will change;
the people of influence and authority still are in charge.
Great comment. Given the 'charlie foxtrot' that has become the Middle East in the wake of Iraq II, Afghanistan and the GWOT
and the current economic and political situation in the U.S. in the wake of COVID-19 (whether you accept the MSM version or not),
"utter humiliation" has occurred. The problem is that the establishment will never admit this and the salient lesson is never
learned. You can use the Vietnam experience as an example.
The lesson of Vietnam, in my humble opinion, is that the U.S. is limited in its ability to project power and to engage in nation
building exercises. The narrative changed in the '80s when lack of political will became the primary culprit for U.S. defeat in
South East Asia rather than the more complicated array of factors that made the war unwinnable from the beginning. Regardless,
in the mid-80s Sec. Def. Caspar Weinberger consolidated the Vietnam lessons into a doctrine that fundamentally advocated restraint.
Arguably, the Weinberger doctrine resulted in the U.S. decision to terminate Iraq War I when it did out of recognition that the
U.S. was in no position to prosecute a full-blown invasion of Iraq and to administer the country post-Saddam.
Although it was entirely ignored by the neocons and by the author himself, the Powell Doctrine was based upon similar notions
of restraint. For example, Point 5 emphasizes that the consequences of military action have been thought out as a precondition
to military engagement.
And let us note the recent report that our "it's time we end the wars" leader has given those great peacemakers in the CIA
operations department the green light to effect cyberwar against Iran. Not hard to imagine who in the neighborhood will happily
assist in that.
Its why Trump is so hated by neocons and neoliberals alike. They both want war....particularly if the democrats are the ones
declaring the war and managing it but look at how much the neocons, the neoliberals, the war profiteers, the lobbyists...all work
to keep the federal money flowing toward war where it can easily be spent often without tracking and easily used for undocumented
bribes and payoffs and inside deals between US politicians like Biden and foreign governments like Ukraine or China.
The US is quite good at military destruction but you cant get new sewars, new water mains, new gas lines, new electrical plants,
new mass transit, new airports, new roads, new housing, preservation of wilderness, preservation of wetlands and estuaries, maintenance
of canals, and roads and bridges...etc. All the money is being siphoned off to foreign allies, foreign wars and if money is spent
domestically then it is spent on politicians skimming money off civilian projects and its spent on democratic constituencies like
Black Lives Matters, Planned Parenthood, Diversity, Immigration, Multiculturalism, affirmative action, teachers unions and other
govt unions, etc....its not spent on actual physical infrastructure projects.
For example, in Iraq we were good at destroying Saddam's Republican Guard, blowing up cities, and dismantling the Ba'athist
infrastructure. We weren't good at convincing Iraqis that the U.S. invasion and western paternalism were truly in their best interest.
It's the same reason that Vietnamization ultimately failed and why the ARVN and RVN government quickly collapsed in a matter
of months in 1975 despite the human cost and billions in economic and military aid being poured into the country. It's probably
why most believe that an actual American withdrawal from Afghanistan will inevitably result in a return to Taliban control, again
despite trillions being poured into the country.
So true. Be they Republicans or Democrats neither seems able to end the wars we are in or admit the economic sanctions are
not working. Perhaps the elections of Social Democrats will change the arguments.
"A must read for anyone who cares about our nation's security in these cyber-serious, hair-trigger
times." – Susan Eisenhower
Every American president since the end of the Cold War has called for better relations with Russia. But each has seen relations
get worse by the time he left office. Now the two countries are facing off in a virtual war being fought without clear goals or
boundaries.
Why? Many say it is because Washington has been slow to wake up to Russian efforts to destroy democracy in America and the world.
But a former head of Russia analysis at the CIA says that this misunderstands the problem. George Beebe argues that new
game-changing technologies, disappearing rules of the game, and distorted perceptions on both sides are combining to lock
Washington and Moscow into an escalatory spiral that they do not recognize. All the pieces are in place for a World War I-type
tragedy that could be triggered by a small, unpredictable event.
The Russia Trap
shows that
anticipating this danger is the most important step in preventing it.
5.0 out of 5 stars
Increasing
Danger of War Due To Misconception
Reviewed in the United States on October 29, 2019
Verified Purchase
The first two chapters alone are the most important pieces I have read in
the past decade. The author describes how the combination of cyber with nuclear and other weapons systems can
render them unreliable. This creates a far more dangerous and uncertain world than the nuclear standoff during
the old War.
Next he describes the recent growth of hostility between the United States and Russia which is based upon false
perceptions of each other, a situation that has created a far greater likelihood of war.
One person found this helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
Peace
with Russia is possible
Reviewed in the United States on October 11, 2019
The Author sees the conflict between Russia and the US as becoming more
and more dangerous. He describes in particular the cyber war as a very new factor. His approach is to make
leaders understand that both sides of a conflict have to be acknowledged.
In his effort to follow his own recipe he describes viewpoints on both sides of the conflict but falls short in
analyzing the real factors of aggressive foreign policies, at least on the side of the US. For him it seems to
be natural for the US to have several hundred military basis around the world. He neither questions the
post-WW2 world order of containment versus the alleged aggressive Soviet Union nor the extension of this type
of behavior in the world after the demise of the Soviet Union. However, he tries to explain the Russian
viewpoint and thinks the West should take that into consideration.
In details he omitted some unpleasant facts. When he writes about the Helsinki Accord of 1975 that determines
that changes of borders only are legitimate by peaceful means he should have pointed out that the first breach
of this Accord was the war against Serbia in order to break Kosovo out of that country.
A guard pushed me into a corridor with a small metal staircase and we started
descending. From there, I could hear the dreadful sounds of people pounding on metal,
shouting in anguish – all sorts of inhuman moaning and howling.
"Shut up, all of you!" barked the officer into the semi-darkness of that metal
hell.
We walked down the corridor surrounded by cells beyond count, men and women were
clinging to the metal netting of the doors. They were begging for water, toilet paper –
or at least for someone to tell them what time it was. Male prisoners were raising hell after
they noticed me, which put an amused grin on the face of my guard.
He threw me into a cell next to one with a man. The wall between us had no windows so I
couldn't see my 'neighbor', but he certainly liked to tune in to any sound I made. He got so
stimulated hearing me moving around next door and choking on my tears that he pleasured
himself loudly all night long – and I had to listen.
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that puts Russia in a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of
the Russia-Trump collusion narrative.
hroughout the Trump years, various reporters have presented
to great fanfare one dubious, thinly sourced story after another about Moscow's supposedly nefarious plots against the United
States. The unsupported allegations about an illegal collusion between Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russian government
spawned a host of subsidiary charges that
proved
to be bogus
. Yet, prominent news outlets, including the
New York Times
, the
Washington Pos
t, CNN, and
MSNBC ran stories featuring such shaky accusations as if they were gospel.
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that
puts
Russia
in
a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of the Russia-Trump collusion narrative. The latest incident began when the
New
York Times
published a front-page article on June 28, based on an anonymous source within the intelligence community,
that Moscow had
put
a bounty
on the lives of American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. The predictable, furious reaction throughout the
media and the general public followed. When the White House insisted that the intelligence agencies had never informed either
the president or vice president of such reports, most press reactions were scornful.
As with so many other inflammatory news accounts dealing
with
Russia
,
serious doubts about the accuracy of this one developed almost immediately. Just days later, an unnamed intelligence official
told CBS reporter Catherine Herridge that the information about the alleged bounties
was
uncorroborated
. The source also revealed to Herridge that the National Security Agency (NSA) concluded that the
intelligence collection report "does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" and lacked
"sufficient reporting to corroborate any links." The report had reached "low levels" at the National Security Council, but it
did not travel farther up the chain of command. The Pentagon, which apparently had
originated
the bounty allegations
and tried to sell the intelligence agencies on the theory, soon retreated and issued
its
own statement
about the "unconfirmed" nature of the information.
There was a growing sense of déjà vu, as though the episode
was the second coming of the infamous, uncorroborated Steele dossier that caused the Obama administration to launch its 2016
collusion investigation. A number of conservative and antiwar outlets highlighted the multiplying doubts. They had somewhat
contrasting motives for doing so. Most conservative critics believed that it was yet another attempt by a hostile media to
discredit President Trump for partisan reasons. Antiwar types suspected that it was an attempt by both the Pentagon and the
top echelons of some intelligence agencies to use the media to generate more animosity toward
Russia
and
thwart the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a process that was still in its early stages following Washington's
February 29, 2020, peace accord with the Taliban.
The bounty stories certainly had that effect.
Congressional hawks in both parties immediately
called
for a delay
in further withdrawals while the allegations were investigated. They also made yet more "Trump is Putin's
puppet" assertions. Nancy Pelosi
could
not resist
hurling another smear with that theme. "With him, all roads lead to Putin," Pelosi said. "I don't know what the
Russians have on the president, politically, personally, or financially."
Despite the growing cloud of uncertainty about the source
or accuracy of the bounty allegation, several high-profile journalists treated it as though it was incontrovertible. A
typically blatant, hostile spin was evident in a
New York Times
article
by
Michael Crowley and Eric Schmitt. The principal "evidence" that they cited for the intelligence report was the earlier story
in their own newspaper. An admission that there were divisions within the intelligence agencies about the report, the authors
buried far down in their article.
High-level intelligence personnel giving the president
verbal briefings did not deem the bounty report sufficiently credible, much less alarming, to bring it to his attention.
Former intelligence official Ray McGovern reached a
blunt
conclusion
: "As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush,
I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian bounty story falls far short of the PDB
threshold."
Barbara Boland, a national security correspondent for the
American
Conservative
and a veteran journalist on intelligence issues, cited some "glaring problems" with the bounty charges. One
was that the Times' anonymous source stated that the assessment was based "on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and
criminals." Boland noted that John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that
captured senior al-Qaeda figure Abu Zubaydah in 2002, termed reliance on coercive interrogations "a red flag." Kiriakou
added, "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want
to hear." Boland reminded readers that under interrogation Khalid Sheik Mohammed made at least 31 confessions, "many of which
were completely false."
A second problem Boland saw with the bounty story was
identifying a rational purpose for such
a
Russian initiative
since it was apparent to everyone that Trump was intent on pulling U.S. troops out. Moreover, she
emphasized, only eight U.S. military personnel were killed during the first six months of 2020, and the
New York Times
story
could not verify that even one fatality resulted from a bounty. If the program existed at all, then it was extraordinarily
ineffective.
Nevertheless, most media accounts breathlessly repeated the
charges as if they were proven. In the
New York Times
, David Sanger and Eric Schmitt
asserted
that,
given the latest incident, "it doesn't require a top-secret clearance and access to the government's most classified
information to see that the list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rivals some of the worst days of the Cold War." Ray
McGovern responded to the Sanger-Schmitt article by impolitely reminding his readers about
Sanger's
dreadful record
during the lead-up to the Iraq War of uncritically repeating unverified leaks from intelligence sources
and hyping the danger of Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Another prominent journalist who doubled down on the bounty
allegations was the
Washington Post's
Aaron
Blake
. The headline of his July 1 article read "The only people dismissing the Russia bounties intel: the Taliban, Russia
and Trump." Apparently, the NSA's willingness to go public with its doubts, as well as negative assessments of the allegations
by several veteran former intelligence officials, did not seem to matter to Blake. As evidence of how "serious" the situation
was (despite a perfunctory nod that the intelligence had not yet been confirmed), Blake quoted several of the usual hawks from
the president's own party.
As time passed, outnumbered media skeptics of the bounties
story nevertheless lobbed increasingly vigorous criticisms of the allegations. Their case for skepticism was warranted. It
became clear that even the CIA and other agencies that embraced the charges of bounties ascribed only "medium confidence" to
their conclusions. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
, there are three levels of
confidence, "high," "moderate," and "low." A "moderate" confidence level means "that the information is credibly sourced and
plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence." The NSA (and
apparently the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and possibly other portions of the intelligence community) gave the reports
the "low" confidence designation,
meaning
that
"the information's credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly
corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that [there are] significant concerns or problems with the sources."
Antiwar journalist Caitlin Johnstone offered an especially
brutal
indictment
of the media's performance regarding the latest installment of the "Russia is America's mortal enemy" saga.
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile," she wrote, "but a special disdain should be
reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the essential task of creating an informed populace
and holding power to account. How much of an unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and
uncritically parrot the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity?"
The media should not have ignored or blithely dismissed the
bounty allegation, but far too many members ran enthusiastically with a story based on extremely thin evidence, questionable
sourcing, and equally questionable logic. Once again, they seemed to believe the worst about Russia's behavior and Trump's
reaction to it because they had long ago mentally programmed themselves to believe such horror stories without doubt or
reservation. The
assessment
by
Alan MacLeod of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is devastatingly accurate. With regard to the bounty story, he
concluded, "evidence-free claims from nameless spies became fact" in most media accounts. Instead of sober, restrained
inquiries from a skeptical, probing press, readers and viewers were treated to yet another installment of over-the-top
anti-Russia diatribes. That treatment had the effect, whether intended or unintended, of promoting even more hawkish policies
toward Moscow and undermining the already much-delayed withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It was a biased,
unprofessional performance that should do nothing to restore the public's confidence in the media's already tattered
credibility.
The spate of gas explosions are unlikely to be accidents. One maybe but not a spate of
them. Unlikely to be cyber as both a physical leak and ignition source are required.
I agree that most of these explosions are probably not "cyberattacks". Despite all the
scare stories about hacking destroying infrastructure, it's not that easy, especially in the
US where every industry and every company within that industry has their own "standards",
which means there are no real standards a hacker can rely on. It's much easier to steal data
than it is to influence hardware, although that certainly can be done in many cases.
On the other hand, there are plenty of internal Iranian dissidents and foreign visitors
who can be employed by both the CIA and Israel to further a spate of physical attacks.
Obviously these sorts of attacks are going to do next to nothing to actually damage
Iranian infrastructure, as Iran is a big country. These sorts of sabotage are merely a
psychological warfare ploy. This is amplified by Western media coverage of the incidents
which is intended to portray Iran as weak and unable to defend itself.
I've often speculated about what a few hundred saboteurs could do if inserted into the US,
armed with nothing but small arms and a decent amount of explosives. Depending on how well
they are kept covert and how smart they are in choosing targets, you could bring the US to
its knees in perhaps six months of operations. Car bombs, for instance - the US is *made* for
car bombs, given our reliance on vehicles and the congestion in the inner cities. Detonate a
car bomb in each of the 50 Major Metropolitan Areas simultaneously and do so consistently
every week for a month and most of the inner cities would be shut down and under martial
law.
That's the kind of actual physical campaign that could produce significant results in a
country. These pin-prick attacks in Iran are just a combination of psychological warfare plus
perhaps some effects as causing their protective services to be overstretched somewhat.
Mostly what they are is an attempt to provoke Iran into doing something *overtly* against
Israel or the US. The neocons want Iran to be the instigator of the war, not the US or
Israel. They want Iran to provide a casus belli for the war, so that Trump and Netanyahu can
present themselves as blameless for the resulting disaster, much like Bush presented Iraq as
responsible for 9/11.
In essence, the US and Israel are acting as Internet trolls, pin-pricking Iran in an
attempt to get Iran to engage and thus manipulate Iran for their own purposes.
Hopefully Iran will not take the bait, or if it does so, that it makes sure its
retaliations are as covert and deniable as the CIA's while being at least equally as damaging
or more so. If I were Iran, I would specifically target the CIA and its assets in the region.
It would not be hard to identify the CIA officers stationed in most countries and conduct
harassment operations against them, even perhaps engineering "accidental deaths". It would be
an analog of the US-Russian Cold War days. Competent spies aren't that plentiful and killing
them off tends to put a real crimp in operations while mostly being deniable since all such
events would be "classified".
The UK will later impose sanctions independently for the first time on dozens of
individuals accused of human rights abuses around the world.
Dominic Raab will name the first violators to have their assets frozen as part of a new
post-Brexit regime.
These are expected to include Russian officials thought to be implicated in the death
of Sergei Magnitsky in 2009.
The whistleblower's maltreatment while in custody has been condemned by the European
Court of Human Rights.
In the past, the UK has almost always imposed sanctions collectively as a member of the
United Nations or European Union but, after its departure from the EU in January, a new
framework is being put in place in UK law .
####
The UK is sanctimonious to a fault. The UK says Magnitsky was a crackerjack tax lawyer and
whistleblower who exposed a gigantic tax fraud by the Russian government. The Russian
government says Magnitsky was a crooked accountant who masterminded a tax-cheat scheme to
help a western crook set up tax shelters and buy Gazprom stock at the price accorded to
nationals only. The UK has been caught in lie after lie after lie, and the scenarios it has
constructed for wrongdoing by Russia on its own soil will barely withstand critical thinking
by alcoholics and farmyard animals. Who's got form here?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a long-awaited law streamlining the process
for foreigners to obtain Russian citizenship.
Foreign citizens who have a Russian parent, are married to a Russian, or have a child
with a Russian citizen, can now quickly obtain a passport themselves. The acquisition of
Russian nationality has also been streamlined for foreigners who reside permanently in the
country.
In April, the Russian parliament passed a law allowing foreigners to become Russian
citizens without giving up existing passports. Along with the simplified process, Moscow
hopes that the updated process for obtaining citizenship will help attract millions of new
Russians.
Time to bite the bullet, I think.
It's the decision that I need not forfeit my British passport is the one that has made me
decide to apply for citizenship, albeit I have the full rights of a Russian citizen already,
apart from the right to participate in political activities. But my children all have two
passports so I want two as well!!!
And there's another thing that annoys me about RT, by the way -- at the very top: who's
this "Putin"?
The man has a full name and is head of state. Why ape the Western arsewipe media with
"Putin-Does-This" and "Putin-Does-That" headlines?
That scientific debate soon turned into a geopolitical one, however. EU farmers are
overwhelmingly dependent on North and West Africa for phosphate where, because of the natural
conditions, there is usually a cadmium level far higher than 20mg/kg. At the same time,
phosphate coming from Russia has far lower natural levels of the metal.
Southern European countries feared that switching phosphate supplies away from Africa
to Russia could severely undermine volatile North African economies and trigger social
problems
One of the countries that has strongly opposed the new labeling rules is Poland -- a
country that historically wants to avoid commercial dependence on Russia but also has its own
national fertilizer business and has invested in a Senegalese phosphate mine
####
Plenty more at the link.
We support the environment as long as it benefits our trade partners and is poitically
balanced in our favor.
This looks like the european industry is waving the 'Russia Bad' flag because it cannot
counter the technical aspects and more environmental policies coming out of the EU.
They are also arguing in favor of less transparency and less information for farmers which
is suspect because their fear is that low cadmium fertilizer (from Russia/wherever) may get
tax-breaks to promote its use.
Rather than figure out a way to adapt and help their partners, their first reaction is to
throw poo at the walls.
The Vatican may be the most influential element on US foreign policy, even more so than
Israel whose interests are not nearly as global. Via the Saker:
In can be argued that the Vatican's interest simply aligns with the "deep state" or it can
be argued that the Vatican is part of the deep state. Indeed the Vatican predates the "deep
state" by centuries and may be the first transational empire.
In any case, the Vatican has been the key player in major international operations from
Poland to Argentina to S Vietnam. Of course, lets not forget their unforgettable role in WW
II and the war against Serbia and the Soviet Union.
The posted article is well worth the long read. The Vatican has gotten a free pass in the
West for far too long with their mass rape of children, organizers of genocide, buddy-buddy
with organized crime and crooked bingo operations. Their role in Ukraine was particularly
eye-opening for me.
I would imagine that the Pope is absolutely fuming about that Russian military cathedral.
My take? That cathedral was built, in part, as a message to the Holy See that if they mess
with Russia or its church, the response will be swift and final.
Erdogan never ceases to amaze. He's the weakest standing strongmen, the midget giant on
glass legs. He can barely cling on to power domestically yet he still makes big dawg moves in
Syria and Egypt. He needed this Hagia Sophia conversion like he needed a bullet to his
head.
On one level I'm sure that he's aware of all this, which just means that his ego is of
galactic proportions.
Also I don't see him allowing a peaceful power transfer to happen, he knows that anyone that
defeats him in election will do so not only on the merits he might have as a candidate, but
also because of anti-Erdo sentiments that grow. So someone will run on "lock him up" platform
and win, maybe not this year but soon, and when that happens there will be blood.
By John Ryan, Ph.D . – Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada
If anyone has proven the adage that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on it shoes,"
it's Bill Browder. The mega-rich vulture capitalist has been spinning a yarn for years.
Intriguingly, after Germany's leading news magazine kiboshed his fake narrative, Anglo-American media ignored the revelations.
Browder's narrative suits the US/UK establishment as it provides a convenient excuse to sanction Russia, but the story has more
holes than Swiss cheese.
The billionaire vulture capitalist has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past decade. A few months back,
Der Spiegel
published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky, but the US/UK mainstream media failed to follow it up and so,
aside from Germany, few people are aware of Browder's background.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies by then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For
a time, it was the largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management
was rated as extremely successful after
earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December 2007.
During the corrupt Boris Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US$25 million, Browder
amassed a
fortune. Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to 2006, his Hermitage firm eventually
grew to $4.5 billion.
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities, he portrayed himself as an anti-corruption activist
and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However,
an examination of Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveal contradictions with his statements to the public
and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian companies to adopt Western-style governance,
it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized companies he was targeting for takeover. Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has
revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in a company, he would resort to lawsuits against this company through
shell companies he controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To prevent its collapse,
the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it, causing its stock to rise -- with the result that Browder's
profits would rise exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant Magnitsky
acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's
companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5 percent instead of the 35 percent that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign companies and citizens from purchasing equities
in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in
2008. Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and charged by Russian prosecutors with
two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's
shell companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009, Magnitsky died in pre-trial detention because of a
failure by
prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest and death were a targeted act of revenge
by Russian authorities against a heroic anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was challenged by the European Court of Human Rights, which in its ruling on August
27, 2019 concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable suspicion of his having committed
a criminal offence." And as such, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy,
started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable activities, Browder had been refused entry to
Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed
by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities, accusing them of corruption and violation
of human rights. The death of his accountant and auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch
an international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky
is anything but.
Despite Browder's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic documents and testimonies show that
Magnitsky died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a gallstone condition. It was negligence typical
at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high-level functionaries
in the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past 10 years, Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by prison guards. Without any verifiable
evidence he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18 minutes. This was never corroborated
by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to discredit and vilify Russia and its government
and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying beliefs and assumptions are being
seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with
the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei Magnitsky, William
Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died
at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos were taken the next day.
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen U.S. media – both allegedly progressive
and mainstream -- have refused to publish this information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten to death with rubber batons. It's
this narrative that has attracted the attention of the US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists.
To further refute his account, a 2011
analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder found no evidence
he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian documents. They were compiled immediately
after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009. Recent investigative research has
revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The first document, D309, states that shortly before Magnitsky's death:
"Handcuffs were used in connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the handcuffs
were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a forensic review states that while in the prison hospital, "Magnitsky
exhibited behavior diagnosed as 'acute psychosis' by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr. Magnitsky to be restrained
with handcuffs."
The second document, D310, is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the preceding sentence. The sentence in
D309 has the phrase "special means were" is changed in D310 to "a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no sense whatsoever, given the title
and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistencies, including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310
was copied from D309 and that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical reports to have
been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document
forms a major basis for Browder's claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a baton attack, combined with forensic
photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long
assertions that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains mistakes and inconsistencies that distort
the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's death.
Despite Magnitsky's death, the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty of corruption in a posthumous trial.
Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include
the accountant Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case against Magnitsky was
closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign insisting that his departure from Russia
resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However, the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is
that in 2003, a Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition, his illegal
purchases of shares in Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies
were reportedly valued at another $30 million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went after Magnitsky, the accountant who
carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the US, Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished his tale by asserting that Sergei
Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case
got more involved, he presented a convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007, three shell companies that had once been owned by Browder were used to claim a $232 million
tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses. Browder has stated that the companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation
organized by a convicted fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence, however, that Magnitsky and
Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this firm were a large number of shell
companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan,
owned by Americans, did the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for Firestone Duncan
and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was interviewed in 2017 by Komisar, who said:
According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure that Russian investigators would later
say was used for tax evasion and illegal share purchases by Hermitage the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal
share purchase schemes.
He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were 'owned' by Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which,
in turn, were 'owned' by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund.
He said the structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along the way. Profits could
get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and HSBC.
Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy Gazprom shares in the local market,
which was restricted for foreign investors.'
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the offices of Hermitage and Firestone
Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support
Russian charges of tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder
stated that Russian Interior Ministry officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies
of the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old
named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials
had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have
the qualifications to do so. In fact, in 2006, when questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an
auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, he claimed Magnitsky
was his lawyer, but in 2015, in his testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative, in December 2012, he presented documents to the New York District Attorney alleging that a Russian company,
Prevezon, had "benefitted from part of the $230 million dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number
of luxury apartments in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed money-laundering charges
against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel, Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court, so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers
to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge
in the Prevezon case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later, while in court and under
oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning
with the following exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible US investigator admitted during questioning that his findings were
based exclusively on statements and documents from Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his
people managed to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that launched the court case,
Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when questioned under oath, he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact,
to almost every question put forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
(Read the next part of The Real Bill Browder story on Thursday, here on RT)
Good article, yes I remember 2016 and the power grid that was taken out by the Ukies. A
lot of generators were sold that summer /year. lol I see Putin and Russia – just
sitting /waiting it out – patiently as usual. Time is on their side and bad things are
happening fast in the domestic west.
Of course Russia is part of the NWO because they have to be. They sell oil, gaz and
natural resources internationally and have Corporations that have a big sayso in the
Government. I think Putin, a long time ago , decided to spare his people from the same fate
of the Western populace or at least , make it as comfortable, as can be expected – in
these times. It helps by not having the Ghettos, Gangs, Dysfunctional Melting Pot, POlice
state, and a slew of Wars to deal with -- for starters. Like the Saker said – Russian
problems are – all the BS directed at them from ther West .
Pravda lied to us about the USSR, but it told the truth about the West.
– Contemporary Russian joke
For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer.
Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT
First published Strategic Culture Foundation
####
A lot more at the link.
I can't really think of much to add. Maybe the word 'disappointment.' It initially sounds
(and feels) rather passive and benign, but as we have all experienced at some point in our
personal lives at the point where reality crashes in dreams and sends them down in flames.
It's that hollow, sick feeling that starts in the pit of your stomach and works its way up to
join your brain in trying to cope with the shock. Then it becomes a weight you carry around
until you are ready to cast it off with a f/k it! and move on.
Plenty of decent people have headed to five eyes thinking they would find a better life,
but we also take in the scum of the world that can be used against their own countries. These
generally rise to high places.
Imperial France seems of the same mindset and Chechen freedom fighters are now fighting for
their freedom in France. Yankistans freedom fighter Osama Bin Larden was just fighting for
freedom apparently. Like the AQ media wing 'White Helmets' that UK and Canada took in, not to
mention the nazi's that participated in the genocides in their own countries in WWII.
When peasants living conditions are constantly improving, there will be no revolt and no
civil war. Yankistan propaganda can't even come up with an opposition in China.
Angloshere propaganda mostly projects onto target countries what they themselves are
doing.
To clear the air, I recalled the "Non-Aligned Movement a forum of developing states not
formally aligned with or against any major power bloc or nations." It consist of - Nehru
India, Tito Yugoslavia, Bung Karno, Bapa Sukarno Indonesia, Zhou Enlai China, Habib Bourguiba
Tunisian, Norodom Sihanouk Cambodian, U Nu Burma, Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser Egypt,
Fidel Castro Cuba, at the Bandung conference in 1955, the Non-Aligned Movement was born.
Later many nationalism leaders were disposed. How about Sukarno, did he "slaughter" the
Chinese? Nope that's from what I was told from BBC and it remains in my mind until uncle
tungstan and Lucci points out my mistakes, it was Suharto with CIA and Brit Foreign Office
that brought down Sukarno and Suharto was disposed his wife was known as Ten Percent.
I was growing up and aligned with Americans exceptionlism. It was after ww2 and
nationalism on the rise (almost) everywhere changed of government. In school each morning
assembled to raised the union jack and sing god save the freaking queen. That's when I was
indoctrinated from BBC the evils of communism and socialism. Western imperialist was the way
to go man. Much of my lunch hours in the library mainly reading, one book, my librarian
recommended The Jungle is Neutral by Spencer F, Chapman . The book still available and
probably my view has changed am no longer accepting the stupid Brit and Yank.
@ JC there is a recent book which analyses how the US policy of preventive mass murder and
torture in Indonesia has inspired policies, structures and knowhow in many of US client
states : https://vincentbevins.com/book/
Thank you for clearing the air on Sukarno. The Indonesian coup that destroyed the
democratic socialis government he led was a tragic loss to the people of Indonesia. The coup
leader Suharto fully backed by the CIA murdered many hundreds of thousands of civilians and
their elected officials and educators and medical staff. It was a ruthless murderous purge.
The Dulles brothers at the top.
Suharto then ruled for decades and Indonesia became the evil corruption ridden prison it
is today. This sad country is our planets exemplar failed state ruled by criminal oligarchs
and their owned courts and religion.
Indonesian people are great in their spirit and humility, they deserve better.
JC and others who have been conversing with him on the issue of the Indonesian military's
persecution and slaughter of Chinese Indonesians and others perceived to be Communist or
sympathetic to Communism or socialism might be interested in watching Joshua Oppenheimer's
"The Act of Killing" to see how small-time thugs and young people (especially those in the
Pancasila Youth movement) alike were caught up in the anti-Communist brainwashing frenzy in
Indonesia during the 1960s and participated in the mass persecution and slaughter
themselves.
Oppenheimer tracked down some of these former killers in North Sumatra and got them to
re-enact their crimes in whatever from they desired. For various reasons, some of them
psychological, they were quite enthusiastic about this idea. Significantly they chose to
re-enact their crimes as a Hollywood Western / Godfather-style pastiche film, even getting
their relatives and friends to play extras.
The mass murderers interviewed did well for themselves with some of them even becoming
politicians and rising to the level of Cabinet Minister in the Indonesian government. The
film also shows something of how deeply corruption is embedded in everyday life with one
prospective political candidate going around bribing villagers and demanding money from
small-time ethnic Chinese shopkeepers in his electorate and threatening them with violence if
they do not cough up.
The major issue I have with the film is that by focusing on these mass murderers in North
Sumatra, it misses the overall national and international political and social context that
still supports and applauds what these killers did. As long as this continues, the likelihood
that similar persecutions and genocidal purges of outsider groups and individuals, be they
Chinese, Christian, Shi'a and other heterodox Muslim, academics, trade unionists, separatists
in Maluku, West Papua or other parts of Indoneisa, and all these purges supported by the West
in some way, will occur in the future is strong.
@ Jen 114
"As long as this continues, the likelihood that similar persecutions and genocidal purges of
outsider groups and individuals, be they Chinese, Christian, Shi'a and other heterodox
Muslim, academics, trade unionists, separatists in Maluku, West Papua or other parts of
Indoneisa, and all these purges supported by the West in some way, will occur in the future
is strong."
Yeah, "we" Anglos" are the only bad guys on this planet - not.
The CIA & co are not yet into slaughtering of Christians. Extremist Indonesian Sunni
Muslims were guilty in the above atrocities, continuing as harassments till today. Hard to
swallow: bad brown people do exist!
Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT, asked a diplomat at the American embassy in
Moscow to shut her mouth after she had tried to shame the Russian Federation about arrested
journalists. U.S. embassy spokeswoman Rebecca Ross said Washington was keeping an eye on
successive arrests in Russia.
Simonyan said in response that allegations of an attempt against the "freedom of the
press" are especially cynical in the light of the numerous arrests of journalists in the
United States. During the riots in the United States alone, 58 journalists have been arrested
and more than 470 injured at the hands of the police.
But Simonyan did not say "mouth", as it says in the lead of the Russian article linked
below:
Just shut your gobs, right! And do not open them until you have rewritten your
methodology manuals so that your couriers are able to work, observing at least a minimal
illusion of connection with reality. Otherwise, this [what you say] is
completely ridiculous , writes the editor-in-chief of RT in Telegram.
"And now you've made sure we do not respect you any more – with your short –
sighted sanctions, the heartless humiliation of our athletes (including the disabled), your
Skripals, with that demonstrative indifference to basic liberal values like presumption of
innocence your attacks of mass hysteria, which can only bring relief to any sane person
living in Russia rather than in Hollywood; with your confusion after the elections – be
it in the US or in Germany or in the Brexit zone – with your incitements against RT
(formerly Russia Today, ed.), whom you can not forgive for taking advantage of your freedom
of speech and demonstrating to the whole world that one had better not use it, and that it
was not invented for use but for ornamentation ( ) -- the injustice, wickedness, hypocrisies,
and lies have led to the point that we do not respect you anymore. You and your so-called
values.
[ ]
We have no more respect for you
[ ]
Our people can forgive many things, but just like anyone else, we do not forgive
arrogance."
Sometimes nothing gets the job done like plain talk. However, the official version would
reflect that Simonyan got spitting mad when people of integrity called her on Russia's
repressions or some such shit. There is a basic truth in there, though – America
sacrificed the respect of a lot of its allies as well, and even those who did not
particularly like it used to respect it.
"It is unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare tactics" Is not the USA
position itself to consider such an attack to be a declaration fo war?
President Trump confirmed in an interview with the Washington Post that the US launched a
cyberattack against infamous Russian troll farm the Internet Research Agency (IRA) during the
2018 midterms.
The Post reported the attack in February 2019, but this is the first time Trump has
confirmed it took place. It is unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare
tactics.
The IRA was indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018 for conspiracy to interfere
with the 2016 presidential election. Russian influence campaigns were also
detected during the 2018 midterms .
President Trump has confirmed that the US launched a cyberattack on the Internet Research
Agency (IRA), an infamous Russian troll farm, during the 2018 midterm elections.
The Washington Post first reported on the attack, which blocked the IRA's internet access,
in February 2019. The administration did not comment on the report at the time, but Trump
confirmed the attack in an
interview with Post columnist Marc Thiessen published Friday.
Thiessen asked whether Trump had launched the attack, to which the president replied
"correct." This is the first time Trump or the White House has confirmed the attack, and it is
unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare tactics.
According to The Post's 2019 report, US Cyber Command's attack started on the first day of
voting for the November 2018 midterm elections, and continued for a few days while votes were
tallied. "They basically took the IRA offline," one source familiar with the matter told The
Post.
"Look, we stopped it," Trump told Thiessen. The Internet Research Agency was indicted by
special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018 for conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 presidential
election. Russian influence campaigns were also
detected during the 2018 midterms .
Trump also claimed that Obama had remained silent on the issue of Russian disinformation
campaigns ahead of the 2016 election.
"[Obama] knew before the election that Russia was playing around. Or, he was told. Whether
or not it was so or not, who knows? And he said nothing. And the reason he said nothing was
that he didn't want to touch it because he thought [Hillary Clinton] was winning because he
read phony polls. So, he thought she was going to win. And we had the silent majority that
said, 'No, we like Trump,'" Trump said.
"... If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up, and leak if something foreshortened his life ..."
"The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI
about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research
project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The
FBI did not disclose that information to the court."
Finally we are getting down to where the cheese binds. Hillary Clinton's campaign, with
Mrs. Clinton's knowledge, commissioned the Steele dossier to try to torpedo Trump's election
prospects. She never thought he could win, but the Dems wanted to make sure.
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut Skripal was the source of the Russian 'intelligence', and
that he was bumped off afterward to make sure he stayed quiet.
The whole Russiagate scandal was just Democrat bullshit, and they kept up with it long
after they all knew they were lying. And Biden thinks he's going to get elected, after that
revelation? The Democrats deserve to be expelled from politics en masse. Leading with that
wretched prick Schiff.
It would seem likely that had the Klintonator won the 2016 Presidential election, Sergei
Skripal might have been left alone mouldering with his guinea pigs and cats in his Salsibury
home. Perhaps he had to take the fall for HRC's loss in the election, for whatever reason
(not shovelling enough shit into the dossier to bring down Trump perhaps); someone had to
take the blame and of course HRC will never admit responsibility for her own failure.
Well, you never know – Russians are kind of an endangered species in the UK. They
turn up dead whenever a public accusation of another Putin 'state hit' would be a useful
feature in the papers.
What I want to know is if the paths of the Skripals passed with those of the supposed
Russian assassins (which I assume to be possible decoys) or anyone else in space, but not
necessarily time. If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want
an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up,
and leak if something foreshortened his life
It could well have been a simple dead-drop and when alerted by their phones being turned
off and batteries removed, the priority was to immobilize/incapacitate them. A bit tricky in
public, but not at all impossible by a near/passer by to their bench with an aerosol, say a
cyclist walking with his bike After all, they did also have the Chief nurse of the BA on hand
just in case it went wrong as things sometimes do. Which leads to the question, was it just
the Brits alone, together with the Americans, or watching the Americans and then cleaning up
their mess? 2 or more likely 3 seem most likely if we look at sheer brazeness.
That concludes my speculation for the day! Maybe I should be a journalist. I could be paid
for this!
Yes, you never know, but it's certainly hard to believe Occam was English. It seems pretty
clear the simplest explanation is "MI6 bumped him off and blamed it on Russia". When you are
trying to arrange a death which is bound to be suspicious, you want to do it in a way that
when it becomes public knowledge, the first people the public thinks of is not you. means,
motive and opportunity all strongly favour the English side. It seems to be be fairly common
knowledge that Skripal wanted to return to Russia; we have no way of knowing if he planned to
live there or just visit, more likely the latter. But Putin decides to send an assassination
team to England to rub him out. Instead of welcoming him home to Russia, where he could
prevent the British from investigating, and then killing him. Presumably in a much more
prosaic fashion – say, running him down with a car – rather than employing some
exotic poison or isotope which will scream 'Russia!!' How long would the British have been
investigating the Skripals' deaths (if they had died) had they been run down with a 7.5 ton
lorry which was subsequently found burned to a shell several counties away? Would the British
papers have been shrieking "Putin's Truck!!!" next morning? But no – Russian assassins
always have to 'send a message', which must inspire Britain to 'send a message' of its own by
punishing the entire country. Maybe it's just me, but flash-cooking Skripal in the High
Street with a flamethrower in broad daylight would send a message. And then say to the
police, "Keep your hands where I can see 'em, unless you want a couple of shashliks,
comrade", before speeding away in an Aurus Senat limousine. That would send a message,
too.
Remember, Sir John Sawers is the former chief of MI6 and is in no way linked to the
UK government. He is a private individual. This is not Hybrid Warfare.
Which is good, because it allows Ed to earnestly parrot his talking points and add plenty
of filler in that well known balanced, independent and journalistically shining star of an
outlet, the Daily Fail.
The lesson I think we can take from this is that UK gov has finally been caught in its own
bitch 'n' slap China trap and also a victim of t-Rump's bash China campaign. Time has run out
on this strategy. It was more than happy to sign on to loud anti-China slogans, as long as it
didn't cost UK plc serious cash or future investme nt. The problem is that China has had
enough of mostly ignoring those slings and arrows for years.
The new so-called 'Wolf-warrior' China response that the west is publicly bemoaning as
'threatening' comes after so much sinophobia. Thus, UK gov has got the message much more
forcefully in the last few days and the opposition like 'ex' directors of British
intelligence and others are all hands to the wheel because they do not hold official power
and have no other way of influencing the government. 2020 really is a momentous year.
I didn't really have time to read it because I have to leave for work, but the headline
alone is enough to showcase classic Lucas behavior – enthusiastically cheer the
government 'taking a stand', and leaving the accountants to sort out the damage and try to
salvage something from the rubble. You know, it is a miracle Britain has survived as long as
it has with the eejits who are let to run it.
This is all about maintaining the US-centered global neoliberal empire. After empires is created the the USA became the
salve of imperial interests and in a way stopped existing as an independent country. Everything is thrown on the altar of "full
spectrum Dominance". The result is as close to a real political and economic disaster as we can get. Like USSR leadership the US
elite realized now that neoliberalism is not sustainable, but can't do anything as all bets were made for the final victory of
neoliberalism all over the world, much like Soviets hoped for the victory of communism. That did not happened and although the USA
now is in much better position then the USSR in 60th (but with the similar level of deterioration of cognitive abilities of the
politicians as the USSR). In this sense COVID-19 was a powerful catalyst of the crush of the US-centered neoliberal empire
Notable quotes:
"... On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy." ..."
"... Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake. Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption, torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic revolutionaries, to America's horror. ..."
"... The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would be threatening war. ..."
"... In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments" – the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation. ..."
Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, unkindly characterized the
foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C., as "the Blob." Although policymakers
sometimes disagree on peripheral subjects, membership requires an absolute commitment to U.S.
"leadership," which means a determination to micro-manage the world.
Reliance on persuasion is not enough. Vital is the willingness to bomb, invade, and, if
necessary, occupy other nations to impose the Blob's dictates on other peoples. If foreigners
die, as they often do, remember the saying about eggs and omelets oft repeated by communism's
apologists. "Stuff happens" with the best-intentioned policies.
One might be inclined to forgive Blob members if their misguided activism actually benefited
the American people. However, all too often the Blob's policies instead aid other governments
and interests. Washington is overrun by the representatives of and lobbyists for other nations,
which constantly seek to take control of US policy for their own advantage. The result are
foreign interventions in which Americans do the paying and, all too often, the dying for
others.
The problem is primarily one of power. Other governments don't spend a lot of time
attempting to take over Montenegro's foreign policy because, well, who cares? Exactly what
would you do after taking over Fiji's foreign ministry other than enjoy a permanent vacation?
Seize control of international relations in Barbados and you might gain a great tax
shelter.
Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America's
treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington's support for
reckless war-mongering. And given the natural inclination of key American policymakers to
intervene promiscuously abroad for the most frivolous reasons, it's surprisingly easy for
foreign interests to convince Uncle Sam that their causes are somehow "vital" and therefore
require America's attention. Indeed, it is usually easier to persuade Americans than foreign
peoples in their home countries to back one or another international misadventure.
The culprits are not just autocratic regimes. Friendly democratic governments are equally
ready to conspiratorially whisper in Uncle Sam's ear. Even nominally classical liberal
officials, who believe in limiting their own governments, argue that Americans are obligated to
sacrifice wealth and life for everyone else. The mantra seems to be liberty, prosperity, and
peace for all – except those living in the superpower tasked by heaven with protecting
everyone else's liberty, prosperity, and peace.
Although the problem has burgeoned in modern times, it is not new. Two centuries ago fans of
Greek independence wanted Americans to challenge the Ottoman Empire, a fantastic bit of
foolishness. Exactly how to effect an international Balkans rescue was not clear, since the
president then commanded no aircraft carriers, air wings, or nuclear-tipped missiles. Still,
the issue divided Americans and influenced John Quincy Adams' famous 1821 Independence Day
address.
Warned Adams:
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there
will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of
monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance
of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting
under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of
individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of
freedom."
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She
might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit .
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a
spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has
been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of
mankind would permit, her practice."
Powerful words, yet Adams was merely following in the footsteps of another great American,
George Washington. Obviously, the latter was flawed as a person, general, and president.
Nevertheless, his willingness to set a critical precedent by walking away from power left an
extraordinary legacy. As did his insistence that the Constitution tasked Congress with deciding
when America would go to war. And his warning against turning US policy over to foreign
influences.
Concern over obsequious subservience to other governments and interests pervaded his famous
1796 Farewell Address. Applied today, his message indicts most of the policy currently made in
the city ironically named after him. He would be appalled by what presidents and Congresses
today do, supposedly for America.
Obviously, the US was very different 224 years ago. The new country was fragile, sharing the
Western hemisphere with its old colonial master, which still ruled Canada and much of the
Caribbean, as well as Spain and France. When later dragged into the maritime fringes of the
Napoleonic wars the US could huff and puff but do no more than inconvenience France and
Britain. The vastness of the American continent, not overweening national power, again
frustrated London when it sought to subjugate its former colonists.
Indeed, when George Washington spoke the disparate states were not yet firmly knit into a
nation. Only after the Civil War, when the national government waged four years of brutal
combat, which ravaged much of the country and killed upwards of 750,000 people in the name of
"union," did people uniformly say the United States "is" rather than "are." However, the
transformation was much more than rhetorical. The federal system that originally emerged in the
name of individual liberty spawned a high tax centralized government that employed one of the
world's largest militaries to kill on a mass scale to enforce the regime's dictates. The modern
American "republic" was born. It acted overseas only inconsistently until World War II, after
which imperial America was a constant, adding resonance to George Washington's message.
Today Washington, D.C.'s elites have almost uniformly decided that Russia is an enemy,
irrespective of American behavior that contributed to Moscow's hostility. And that Ukraine, a
country never important for American security, is a de facto military ally, appropriately armed
by the US for combat against a nuclear-armed rival. A reelection-minded president seems
determined to turn China into a new Cold War adversary, an enemy for all things perhaps for all
time. America remains ever entangled in the Middle East, with successive administrations in
permanent thrall of Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing foreign leaders to set US Mideast policy.
Indeed, both states have avidly pressed the administration to make their enemy, Iran, America'
enemy. The resulting fixation caused the Trump administration to launch economic war against
the rest of the world to essentially prevent everyone on earth from having any commercial
dealing of any kind with anyone in Tehran.
Under Democrats and Republicans alike the federal government views nations that resist its
dictates as adversaries at best, appropriate targets of criticism, always, sanctions, often,
and even bombs and invasions, occasionally. No wonder foreign governments lobby hard to be
designated as allies, partners, and special relationships. Many of these ties have become
essentially permanent, unshakeable even when supposed friends act like enemies and supposed
enemies are incapable of hurting America. US foreign policy increasingly has been captured and
manipulated for the benefit of other governments and interests.
George Washington recognized the problem even in his day, after revolutionary France sought
to win America's support against Great Britain. He warned: "nothing is more essential than that
permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all
should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual
fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either
of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
Is there a better description of US foreign policy today? Even when a favored nation is
clearly, ostentatiously, murderously on the wrong side – consider Saudi Arabia's
unprovoked aggression against Yemen – many American policymakers refuse to allow a single
word of criticism to escape their lips. The US has indeed become "a slave," as George
Washington warned.
The consequences for the US and the world are highly negative. He observed that "likewise, a
passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the
favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no
real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the
former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification."
This is an almost perfect description of the current US approach. American colonists
revolted against what they believed had become ever more "foreign" control, yet the US backs
Israel's occupation and mistreatment of millions of Palestinians. American policymakers parade
the globe spouting the rhetoric of freedom yet subsidize Egypt as it imprisons tens of
thousands and oppresses millions of people. Washington decries Chinese aggressiveness, yet
provides planes, munitions, and intelligence to aid Riyadh in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians
and destruction of Yemeni homes, businesses, and hospitals. In such cases, policymakers have
betrayed America "into a participation in the quarrels and wars without adequate inducement or
justification."
On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US
Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to
destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve
their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US
Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against
another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of
umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute
occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation,
prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the
best calculations of policy."
Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There
were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake.
Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the
terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was
constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped
replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption,
torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic
revolutionaries, to America's horror.
Read George Washington and you would think he had gained a supernatural glimpse into today's
policy debates. He worried about the result when the national government "adopts through
passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation
subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the
victim."
What better describes US policy toward China and Russia? To be sure, these are nasty
regimes. Yet that has rarely bothered Uncle Sam's relations with other states. Saudi Arabia, a
corrupt and totalitarian theocracy, has been sheltered, protected, and reassured by the US even
after invading its poor neighbor. Among Washington's other best friends: Bahrain, Turkey,
Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, tyrannies all.
The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations
treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other
ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an
elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet
allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would
be threatening war.
Washington, DC also is treating China as a near-enemy, claiming the right to control China
along its own borders – essentially attempting to apply America's Monroe Doctrine to
Asia. This is something Americans would never allow another nation, especially China, to do to
the US Imagine the response if Beijing sent its navy up the East Coast, told the US how to
treat Cuba, and constantly talked of the possibility of war. America's consistently hostile,
aggressive policy is the result of "projects of pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives."
This kind of foreign policy also corrupts the American political system. It encourages
officials and people to put foreign interests before that of America. As George Washington
observed, this mindset: "gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote
themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; guiding, with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal
for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
For instance, Woodrow Wilson and America's Anglophile establishment backed Great Britain
over the interests of the American people, dragging the US into World War I, a mindless
imperial slugfest that this nation should have avoided. After the Cold War's end Americans with
ties to Central and Eastern Europe pushed to expand NATO to their ancestral homes, which
created new defense obligations for America while inflaming Russian hostility. Ethnic Greeks
and Turks constantly battle over policy toward their ethnic homelands. Taiwan has developed
enduring ties with congressional Republicans, especially, ensuring US government support
against Beijing. Many evangelical Christians, especially those who hold a particularly bizarre
eschatology (basically, Jews must gather together in their national homeland to be slaughtered
before Jesus can return), back Israel in whatever it does to assist the apparently helpless God
of creation finish his job. The policies that result from such campaigns inevitably are shaped
to benefit foreign interests, not Americans.
Regarding the impact of such a system on the political system George Washington also was
prescient: "As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are
particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities
do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead
public opinion, to influence or awe the public council. Such an attachment of a small or weak
towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."
In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments"
– the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security
interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the
president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many
other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who
demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security
importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and
lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer
foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation.
What to do about such a long-standing problem? George Washington was neither naïf nor
isolationist. He believed in what passed for globalism in those days: a commercial republic
should trade widely. He didn't oppose alliances, for limited purposes and durations. After all,
support from France was necessary for the colonies to win independence.
He proposed a practical policy tied to ongoing realities. The authorities should "steer
clear of permanent alliances," have with other states "as little political connection as
possible," and not "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils" of other nations'
"ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice." Most important, the object of US foreign
policy was to serve the interests of the American people. In practice it was a matter of
prudence, to be adapted to circumstance and interest. He would not necessarily foreclose
defense of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Germany, but would insist that such proposals reflect a
serious analysis of current realities and be decided based on what is best for Americans. He
would recognize that what might have been true a few decades ago likely isn't true today. In
reality, little of current US foreign policy would have survived his critical review.
George Washington was an eminently practical man who managed to speak through the ages.
America's recently disastrous experience of playing officious, obnoxious hegemon highlights his
good judgment. The US, he argued, should "observe good faith and justice towards all nations;
cultivate peace and harmony with all."
America may still formally be a republic, but its foreign policy long ago became imperial.
As John Quincy Adams warned, the US is "no longer the ruler of her own spirit." Americans have
learned at great cost that international affairs are too important to be left to the Blob and
foreign policy professionals, handed off to international relations scholars, or, worst of all,
subcontracted to other nations and their lobbyists. The American people should insist on their
nation's return to a true republican foreign policy.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute . A former Special Assistant to President Ronald
Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .
The headline
blares that it's a big "administration" conspiracy to play up doubts and play down proofs
of the bounties plot, but the text itself reveals that it's the National Intelligence Council
that did the new review and that even the CIA , the agency out in front on this story,
has only "medium" or "moderate" confidence on the reality of the plot. Meanwhile DoD and NSA
both still say they give it low confidence and cannot verify.
You gotta appreciate the desperate spin of the Times reporters and their editors
here:
"A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation's top intelligence official
acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia
appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but
emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence, according to three officials."
Oh how cynical of the National Intelligence Council to "emphasize" doubts instead of
running with wild unverified claims! Their anonymous sources assure us that the memo "was
intended to bolster the Trump administration's attempts to justify its inaction" over the
alleged Russian interference. But intelligence officials tell the New York Times
lots of things .
I buried the lead nearly as badly as they did, but here it is before they go meandering
off saying nothing and refusing to acknowledge the importance of the following admission:
"The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed
with medium confidence -- meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near
certainty -- that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.,
offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
"But other parts of the intelligence community -- including the National Security
Agency, which favors electronic surveillance intelligence -- said they did not have
information to support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower
confidence in the conclusion, according to the two officials. A third official familiar with
the memo did not describe the precise confidence levels, but also said the C.I.A.'s was
higher than other agencies."
So Charlie Savage
admits that his whole stupid
story is based on a medium -confidence conclusion of the CIA against the
views of the NSA
and DoD . I wonder if he noticed the same people gave the story to the Wall Street
Journal and Washington Post at the same time as an
obvious attempt to use their stenography in a plot to prevent Trump from considering an
"early" withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"'Afghan officials said prizes of as much as $100,000 per killed soldier were offered
for American and coalition targets,' the Times reported. And yet, when Rukmini Callimachi, a
member of the reporting team breaking the story, appeared on MSNBC to elaborate further, she
noted that 'the funds were being sent from Russia regardless of whether the Taliban followed
through with killing soldiers or not. There was no report back to the GRU about casualties.
The money continued to flow.'
"There is just one problem -- that's not how bounties work."
And they will keep on jerking that rusty old chain.
Again, probably not an urgent problem unless some existing Chinese aircraft in service are
on their last legs and urgently must be replaced. In which case they could go with Airbus if
the situation could not wait. China has options. Boeing does not.
The west loves to portray the Chinese as totally without ethics, and if you have a product
they can't make for themselves, they will buy it from you only until they have figured out
how to make it themselves, and then fuck you, Jack. I don't see any reason to believe the
Chinese value alliances less than the west does, or are any more incapable of grasping the
value of a give-and-take trade policy. The west – especially the United States –
favours establishing a monopoly on markets and then using your inability to get the product
anywhere else as leverage to force concessions you don't want to make; is that ethical? China
must surely see the advantages of a mutually-respectful relationship with Russia, considering
that country not only safeguards a significant length of its border from western probing, but
supplies most of its energy. There remain many unexplored avenues for technical, engineering
and technological cooperation. At the same time, Russia is not in a subordinate position
where it has to endure being taken advantage of.
Trade is hard work, and any partner will maneuver for advantage, because everyone in
commerce likes market share and money. But Washington has essentially forgotten how to
negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into
relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing
it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.
20 Saudi nationals involved in the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi;
25 Russian nationals involved in the mistreatment and death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky,
who uncovered widespread corruption;
two high-ranking Myanmar generals involved in violence against Rohingya people and
other ethnic minorities
Two organisations involved in forced labour, torture and murder in North Korea's gulags
have also been listed
The new autonomous regime will allow the UK to work independently with allies such as
the US, Canada, Australia and the EU
####
But not Mohammed Bin Salman, obvs. Those weapons aren't going to sell themselves!
Can the UK government put itself on the list for arbitary detention and expulsion of Brits
born in Jamaica but resident in the UK for decades and asked to come to the UK due to
the shortage of national labor, aka the Windrush scandal? The latest news on that is there is
no automatic redress for those screwed over by Theresa May+. They have to prove they that
they had been unfairly targeted!
'Suspected' killers. That's good enough for sanctions these days. Hopefully the rest of
the EU will take Brexit as an opportunity to break with the Russophobic policies of the loony
UK and its crackpot big brother, and re-orient its economy on a separate trajectory from
theirs. We're already going to end up with two distinct trading blocs who operate largely
outside one another, to the detriment of both but much more so to the United States. We don't
need three. I'm watching in appalled fascination to see what happens to the American airliner
market when it doesn't get any more Chinese orders. Once I would have said it was impossible
that Boeing would go under, but now I'm not so sure.
Speaking of Boeing, no more 747's will be built after the current order backlog is
completed, about 13 more planes. That'll be it for four-engine airliners – too
expensive to run. Twin-engine planes can achieve almost the same range for less outlay. And
economy is going to have to be the watchword of the aviation industry for awhile if it is to
survive: air travel in the USA is down about 80% in the past week. Of course Boeing stock
rose, though, because the investor class lives in a different reality.
I can't help noting that this will mean Boeing will rely even more heavily on the 737.
Lessons from Dr. Strangelove: The Risks of Deploying Low-Yield Nukes on Submarines
by Natasha E. Bajema
Stanley Kubrik's cult classic, Dr. Strangelove, has a lot to teach us about the practicalities of nuclear deterrence. Using
the film as a frame, we explore how other countries might view the deployment of low-yield nukes on U.S. submarines.
The low-yield nuclear warhead allegedly provides the U.S. with a needed capability for
deterring the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia, a prospect considered more likely under its current
nuclear doctrine. Proponents claim these new weapons are prompt,
useable
,
and capable of circumventing Russia's air defenses.
The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Nebraska (SSBN 739) transits the Hood Canal as it returns to Naval
Base Kitsap-Bangor.
But these claims beg two questions. Does this new weapon lead to enhanced credibility?
If so, at what cost?
Russian Forces Officially Enter the Crimea Region of Ukraine
Whenever U.S. policymakers express their fears of a "capability gap", it's hard not to
think of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 parody of nuclear weapons policies,
Dr. Strangelove
.
While
esteemed
experts have proposed plenty of valid arguments
against deploying low-yield nuclear weapons on submarines, it is
also worth considering what the film might teach us about credibility, capability gaps, the practicalities of deterrence
theory, and the essential role of perception.
I
Getting Into the Minds of our Adversaries is Essential for Achieving Nuclear Deterrence
After consulting with Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling, Kubrick defines deterrence in
his film as "the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack."
Schelling suggests the threat of violence implied by deterrence requires explicit or
implicit collaboration between a "deterrer" and a "deterree" to achieve the common interest of avoiding mutual
destruction. This assumes country leaders are rational, spend time
evaluating
the costs and benefits of multiple courses of action, and communicate clearly about the nature of their deterrent. The
country being deterred will refrain from an action if it proves to be too costly.
If
one party refuses to collaborate or uphold the assumption of rationality, then deterrence fails.
See our new projects first
We publish 1-2 stories each month. Subscribe for updates about new articles, videos, and interactive features.
SIGN ME UP!
To determine what might be costly for its adversaries, the U.S. must therefore get
into their heads and see the world from their perspective.
An adversary must
believe
that
the U.S. has the will and capability to follow through with a particular threat. The deterrent must be credible.
II
A Capability Gap is Whatever You Make of It
Since nuclear deterrence does not involve the actual "use" of nuclear weapons, but
rather the threat of their use, it occurs largely in the minds of the "deterrer" and the "deterree".
When President John F. Kennedy first took office in 1961, many people perceived the
credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent to suffer from a so-called "missile gap" vis-a-vis the Soviet Union -- a threat
which turned out to be in error. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 and Khrushchev's bluster about the Soviet superiority
generated a widely-held impression that the U.S. trailed far behind the Soviets in ballistic missile technology. But the
gap was actually in United States' favor.
Ham radio operator Dick Oberholtzer and his wife listening to radio signals from Sputnik I.
Francis Miller/The LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images
To close the gap, the Kennedy administration deployed the "Jupiter" nuclear missiles
to Italy and Turkey with the Soviet Union as their intended target. Meanwhile, Khrushchev decided to place
intermediate-range missiles in Cuba in an effort to restore the perceived imbalance in capabilities.
A Soviet freighter is photographed just after leaving Cuba to return home.
Naval History & Heritage Command
Dr. Strangelove
suggests that a capability gap
exists because we think it exists. Alternatively, it exists because we fear our adversary thinks it exists. The gap does
not have to exist beyond the human imagination. It is the fear evoked by the perceived capability gap that matters.
Therefore, w
hatever U.S. policymakers think
about the supposed "capability gap" will have real world effects. But these effects will not necessarily benefit U.S.
national security in the way they intend. It depends on how their adversaries think about it.
III
Understanding the Discord Between Credibility and the Requirement for Rationality
In the film, plans to enhance credibility of a nuclear deterrent go awry, bringing
about the very nuclear catastrophe such actions were designed to prevent.
A deranged general activates a Top Secret plan designed to ensure prompt retaliation
in the event of a Soviet attack on U.S. leadership by allowing lower-level commanders to give nuclear launch orders. If
a first-strike nuclear attack inevitably leads to an all-out nuclear war, it would never be in the Soviet Union's
interest to start one.
American actor Sterling Hayden as General Jack Ripper in 'Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love
The Bomb' directed by Stanley Kubrick, 1964. In the film, the delusional General Ripper orders a nuclear attack on
the USSR, which triggers a Soviet doomsday device.
Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images
As absurd as it seems, creating a situation in which the loss of central command and
control of nuclear weapons might occur was perceived as an effective strategy for enhancing credibility during the Cold
War.
As absurd as it seems, creating a situation in which the loss of central command and
control of nuclear weapons might occur was perceived as an effective strategy for enhancing credibility during the Cold
War. By exacerbating the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear conflict, adversaries were believed to refrain from
taking escalatory actions.
The problem with enhancing credibility of a nuclear deterrent is that such actions
rely on the strict rationality of both parties. Even if leaders are rational in the purest sense, they often lack
necessary information to properly analyze the costs and benefits for all possible courses of action, which can lead to
dangerous miscalculations.
While U.S. policymakers may perceive the new low-yield capability as
enhancing credibility, Putin may still be prepared to call the U.S. bluff on the strength of its will to use nuclear
weapons of any yield.
IV
When Nuclear Deterrence Theory is Translated into Practice, Nuclear War Becomes More Probable
As illustrated in
Dr. Strangelove,
plans grounded
in deterrence theory are prone to nuclear catastrophe when put into practice. Decentralizing command and control
enhances credibility, but it also introduces a significant risk of unauthorized nuclear war.
During the Cold War, the U.S. deployed thousands of tactical nuclear weapons to Europe
to credibly deter an attack from the Soviet Union where it enjoyed significant conventional superiority.
Many tactical nuclear weapons required pre-delegation authority to enhance
credibility. For example, the
Davy
Crockett
light recoilless rifle carried a W54 warhead with a yield of 10 to 20 tons. These weapons were mounted on
jeeps, operated by a three-man crew, and deployed to the front lines in Europe.
A U.S. Army soldier operates a Davy Crockett mounted on a jeep as three fellow soldiers stand by and watch on a
snow-covered road during the Vietnam War. The Davy Crockett was the U.S. Army hand or jeep portable weapons system
capable of firing atomic or conventional warheads.
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Although the weapon's lethal radius famously exceeded its range, Carl Kaysen, a
prominent nuclear deterrence strategist during the Kennedy administration, expressed greater concern about its implied
pre-delegation authority.
I can't imagine a situation in which it could be safely deployed and used. How are you going to command it? How are
you going to be in control of it? You'll have some sergeant in a jeep firing off nuclear weapons because he's in
danger of being captured.
Carl Kaysen
Nuclear deterrence makes good sense in theory, and holds up in the minds of deterrer
and deterree. As long as nuclear war does not occur, deterrence has succeeded. However, when nuclear deterrence is
implemented as a military strategy, it can translate into absurd situations that actually increase the risk of nuclear
war.
V
Communication is Essential, but Perception is Everything
The conflation of communication with perception was a paramount theme in
Dr.
Strangelove.
In the film, the President goes as far as allowing the Soviet Ambassador into the War Room to clear up
any misunderstandings.
But, clear communication does not guarantee accurate perception.
This
is where the new submarine-launched low-yield nuclear warhead becomes especially problematic. Deploying low-yield
nuclear warheads on a strategic delivery system produces
dangerous
uncertainties
if U.S. policymakers attempt to use them. And they have to at least be willing to use them for the
sake of credibility.
A port quarter aerial view of the nuclear-powered Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Nebraska (SSBN 739)
underway in the Atlantic.
U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Christian Viera
If they're used, will the Russians perceive the attack as limited? If asked this
question, Dr. Strangelove would likely respond: "The whole point of a limited response... is lost...if your adversary
can't tell the difference!"
If under attack from a ballistic missile submarine, the Russians are likely to assume
the worst if they can't determine the exact yield of the warhead on an incoming SLBM. And the worst would lead to
nuclear war with the United States.
In fact, as a result of this risk, U.S. policymakers
might
be self-deterred
and reluctant to use these weapons in the first place. Putin is likely to anticipate this, which
would entirely defeat the purpose of the new capability while increasing the potential for nuclear war.
VI
We Need to Move Beyond Capability Gaps as Drivers of Nuclear Weapons Policy
In his film, Kubrick demonstrates the absurdity of a capability gap in a concluding
discussion about "doomsday gaps" and "mineshaft gaps".
The new low yield nuclear warhead deployed on ballistic missile submarines fails to
enhance credibility. It also increases the risk of nuclear war. As a result, this new weapon does not make us safer, but
rather invites potential misunderstanding with adversaries.
Let's draw on lessons from history and pop culture and avoid repeating past mistakes.
Natasha Bajema is the Founder and CEO of Nuclear Spin Cycle and the host of the Authors
of Mass Destruction Podcast. Follow her on Twitter
@W
MDgirl
.
The rise of China has been a looming threat to the U.S. primacy on the world stage, as
Beijing increasingly seeks to push the United States out of its immediate periphery and
ultimately Asia
. Facing an increasingly powerful China, Obama initiated the strategic rebalancing of U.S.
interests from the Middle East to East Asia. The "
pivot to Asia " aimed to slow down the rise of China as a great power, and also to free the
United States from the shackles of the Middle East wars. In this context, Obama's successor,
Trump, in his 2019 State of the Union address
noted that "great nations do not fight endless wars." For that matter, the Trump
administration has followed its predecessor's overall strategy to pull the United States out of
the Middle East and refocus on its attention on the looming threat of rising China.
Trump, for his turn, has upped the ante by waging a trade war against China and has
increased the U.S. military presence in its vicinity
. In April and May 2020, the U.S. Navy deployed several warships to the South China Sea,
including Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Montgomery to counter Beijing's "
bullying ." Meanwhile, three of the eleven U.S. Navy aircraft
carriers are currently patrolling the Pacific, sending a powerful signal to China.
Washington has also resorted to economic sanctions
to counter Beijing and is considering the
deployment of ballistic missiles to Asia pacific; a move that could shift the balance of
power in favor of the United States.
The recent outbreak of the deadly coronavirus has also enabled the U.S. administration to
increase its diplomatic attacks
against China, blaming Beijing for hiding the truth about the spread of the deadly virus. It is
interesting to note that U.S. officials in reference to China are increasingly using the word "
communist
," a reminiscent of the Cold War great-power rivalry between the United States and the Soviet
Union. Washington's efforts to slow down and hinder China's rise, as a potential
peer-competitor are in line with the realist predictions that great powers seek to ensure that
no other power can challenge them.
Over the years, the United States has also
increased its defense spending, which is
projected to reach a historic record of $740.5 billion for the year 2021. Meanwhile, some
analysts have even
argued that the U.S. defense budget exceeds $1 trillion. Furthermore, the United States is
investing in new military technologies, including missile defense systems to
counter China's "[development of] missile capabilities intended to deny the United States
the capability and freedom of action to protect U.S. allies and partners in Asia." In the same
context, as China
unveiled its own "game-changer" DF-17 hypersonic missile, the United States is
pressing for its own "super-duper" missiles -- as Trump
calls them -- to take the lead in the emerging arms race for hypersonic missiles. Russia,
for its part, has also deployed Avangard hypersonic missiles, claiming
that it can reach twenty times the speed of sound.
With respect to nuclear weapons, the Trump administration has also called for the expansion
of the role, and capabilities of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The 2018 Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR) observes the "need" for replacement, sustainment and modernization of
the U.S. nuclear triad. Following the NPR, the United States has deployed
low-yield nuclear warheads, which in turn could lower the threshold of the use of nuclear
weapons. Furthermore, some reports
suggest that the United States, after decades of a moratorium, may conduct its first
nuclear test.
The new changes in the U.S. nuclear policies are reflective of the recent developments in
great power rivalry with Russia and China and are in line with realist
predictions that great powers go into a great length to maintain a credible nuclear deterrence
against other nuclear states. In this vein, Russian president Vladimir Putin recently
signed
Russia's nuclear deterrent policy, announcing that Russia, in response to conventional attacks,
would use nuclear weapons. Ironically, Putin's move echoes President Dwight Eisenhower's "
massive
retaliation " policy, which implicitly threatened nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union
in response to any conventional aggression against America's allies.
Although much smaller in size compared to the United States and Russia, China for its own
part, has embarked on modernizing its nuclear arsenal, fielding a greater number of warheads. A
report by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies indicates that the number of Chinese nuclear
warheads between 2012 and 2019 grew from 240 to 290, suggesting a 21 percent increase. From
Beijing's perspective , however, "rising strategic
threats" emerging from Washington, mandates the country to increase the number of its warheads,
and complete its nuclear triad.
The Trump administration has also set on the path of abandoning international arms control
agreements, unshackling the U.S. military from previous limitations. In the latest case, the
Trump administration, citing Russia's violation of the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), withdrew from
the four-decade arms control agreement in August 2019, allowing the U.S. military to develop
and
test previously banned intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Notwithstanding the official
reasoning however, the decision to abandon the INF treaty has more to do with concerns over
China's
growing intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which is not bound to any restrictions.
As the expiration date for another arms control treaty, the New
START is approaching, the Trump administration is pressing
China to join any future agreement between Washington and Moscow; a demand that seems to be
unlikely given China's own insecurities, and small nuclear arsenal. In the case of INF for
example, reports indicate that China could
lose up to 95 percent of its ballistic missiles capability, should it join an agreement
similar to INF. These developments are consistent with Realist
dictums that states are concerned with their relative gains when joining international
regimes, such as arms control agreements.
After more than three decades of primacy on the world stage, the United States is facing
serious challenges emerging from Asia. To counter them, the United States has sought to
increase its relative power and simultaneously contain its closest competitor, Beijing, which
after two centuries of absence from the world stage, is bent on upending the current ordering
of the international system. In any case, the current U.S. approach to increasing military
spending, nuclear modernization and unilaterally abrogating multilateral agreements are
consistent with realist predictions of great-power rivalry. In this context, under the likely
scenario of a second Trump term, one should expect the United States to continue abrogating
international regimes, and to further increase military expenditure, which in turn could
trigger another arms race, reminiscent of the Cold War era.
Sina Azodi is a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council and a foreign policy advisor
at Gulf State Analytics. He is also a PhD candidate in international relations at the
University of South Florida. Follow him on Twitter @Azodiac83.
Says US would need to come down to China's level for arsenal
China confirmed on Wednesday that they would be happy to join trilateral nuclear arms
limitation talks with the US and Russia, but would only do so if the US drastically cut its
nuclear stockpile to be in line with China's
####
From the CNN link: "I can assure you that if the US says that they are ready to come
down to the Chinese level (of nuclear weapons), China will be happy to participate the next
day. But actually we know that's not going to happen," Fu Cong, head of the Chinese Foreign
Ministry's arms control department, said at a press briefing in Beijing Wednesday
###
LOLZ! That's a pretty good response and I'm surprised they didn't say this much earlier,
but I assume Beijing & Mosocw have it all in hand. Now I would follow this up with If
it helps, we will increase our nuclear capacity to 6,000 plus deployable nuclear weapons and
then negotiate a reduction. Agree?
I LOVE your answer, it is even better than the Chinese response, which I agree was pretty
tongue-in-cheek. Maybe you should be a diplomat – it's not too late.
It also occurred to me that China has a Cuban option if the US insists on ringing it with
missiles and them moves nukes up to the region. Beijing would only have to mention the
possibility and Washington would go apoplectic! Remember that the Cuban missile crisis had
its origins in the USA installing Nike/Jupiter IRBMs in northern Turkey which would have a
very short flight time to target in the Soviet Union. Putting nukes in Cuba was an et tu
Brute move and completely unexpected, coz the enemy is always dumb.
Ringing China was on the cards from the mid-1990s, so of it already implemented such as
'Super Bastions', i.e. building up bases such as Guam & Diego Garcia to take more
bombers, nuke armed submarines etc. The down side of that is that they make very tempting
targets to hit with nukes themselves, both bases being far from any other country.
Just at what point will the US understand that building up its military forces in the
region is massively retarded? Unfortunately the French and the British have signed on. India
still hasn't learned its strategic lessons either as we have seen recently with China where
it tried to change the balance (via J&K new state declaration etc.) and got wedgied. The
US loves its naval exercises with India in the region coz the USN doesn't and will not have
enough (of the right) ships to do so itself ($$$) so being nice is a bit of a freebie.
Backing up India 100% wouldn't be but it does look good in public when soothing words come
from Washington.
After neocons in Washinton adopted Magnitsky act all bets for US-Russia cooperation are off.
And that in a long run will hurt the USA too.
Notable quotes:
"... Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. ..."
Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire
more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by
what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should
interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. Sooner or later America's allies are going
to refuse to recognize its extraterritorial sanctions, which it has no legal right to impose;
it gets away with it by threatening costs in trade with the USA, which is a huge economy and
is something under its control. But that practice causes other countries to gradually
insulate themselves against exposure, and one day the cost of obeying will be greater than
the cost of saying "Go fuck yourself".
The New York Times goes a little further, stressing that the agreement would entail an
economic and military partnership: "It calls for joint training and exercises, joint research
and weapons development and intelligence sharing -- all to fight "the lopsided battle with
terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes." This would give Iran access
to some fairly high-tech systems, perhaps fighter aircraft and training and tech support, but
of that part of the package, I would rate intelligence sharing the highest. It would
potentially give Iran a heads-up on what the USA is planning in the region before it even is
briefed to Congress – Washington leaks like a sieve, and while it is often intentional,
it happens when it is not desired as well.
Washington's policy now consists of little more than frantically papering over cracks as
they appear; its ability to direct the world is gone and its ability to influence it is
deteriorating by the day as it becomes more and more intensely disliked, and everyone's
enemy. Perversely, this brings war closer as a possibility, as threats of it are no longer an
effective deterrent to partnerships and exchanges the USA does not like. More and more of
those threatened are taking the attitude of "Put up or shut up". Trade deals outside
Washington's influence increase those countries' insulation against US sanctions, and perhaps
it is beginning to dawn on the western banking cartel that it is in imminent danger of being
isolated itself, like a fleck of grit that irritates an oyster and finds itself encased in
nacre.
Beijing follows through on its promised retaliation for Washington's move to hold
individuals to account
Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio among those facing sanctions in latest tit-for-tat
move
####
More at the link.
What springs to mind is that Groucho Marx quote: "I refuse to join any club that would
have me as a member."
That the US sanctions China with an act named after a dodgy Russian book-keeper working
for a thief is all kinds of wrong, but as we all know, the ends justify the means. Hamsters
are happy.
For five years, the sporting world has been gripped by Russian manipulation of the
anti-doping system. Now new evidence suggests the whistleblower who went into a witness
protection program during the scandal may not have been entirely truthful.
#####
What's the bet that the beagle will win prizes for 'reporting' like this and the previous
'discovery' that Bill Browder makes pork sandwiches in a pork shop made of pork? More
importantly, wtf is up with this coming out now? Has the free, democratic and inquisitive
German press suddenly grown a pair or have the authorities told them that they could 'go
ahead.' Nothing that they have published is new and has been known about for a long time.
Again, wtfof?
Hi, Nicola! Great to see you again! It would be fairly easy to guess what the US wants
WADA to do in future – mind your business where US athletes are concerned, or at a
minimum accept American explanations for any irregularities you might find, and come down
like a ton of bricks on the Russians and the Chinese, excluding them from pro sports to the
degree that is possible.
Well, once again, it was the Germans who started it all. WADA went to German station ARD
with its suspicions – which it got from the Stepanovs, Rodchenkov was still defending
the Moscow lab and calling the WADA panel 'fools' at that point – and then WADA used
the ARD 'documentary' as an excuse to open a major investigation. At some juncture someone
probably pointed out how lucrative it could be fr Roschenkov if he rolled, and he did.
Yes, I'm sure the Germans will reap rewards from playing both ends. But who cares, as long
as it gets out? Maybe it will teach people to not be so trusting of the mess media next time
it breaks a Russia-the-Evil story. Probably not, though.
Newt Gingrich has an informative article on FOX this weekend about the threat Trump has
posed to traditional Republican court hangers-on. He illustrates how this presidency has
destroyed the careers that many of these very wealthy and powerful members of the Deep State
saw as their dynastic inheritance. I point it out because Gingrich would know intimately how
those people feel.
Couple that with the clumsy approach Trump made to the china shop throughout his campaign,
is it any wonder that the FBI, a fundamentally stupid operation now and at all times in the
past, has been busting a gut? I came of age in the sixties and went to university at a center
of opposition to the Deep State that was then concerned with killing poor yellow peasants in
the rice fields of Southeast Asia. We all assumed they had us in dossiers they built and
studied carefully as they closed in on our coffee house discussions. Never happened.
Please keep in mind that these bureaucrats would never do anything that might krinkle the
crease in their trousers. Also bear in mind that the reports we read are written by English
Majors, probably affirmative action hires, in the lower bowels of unhealthy Washington office
buildings. The only people who read them are people who manage to pry them out of the sweaty
little fingers of desperately single women.
All of the Washington bureaucratic swamp is a manifestation of White Welfare, people hired
because they are related to somebody who wants to keep them from turning to prostitution.
Jonathan Guyer, managing editor of The American Prospect, has an unbelievably
well-reported piece on
the making of a Washington national security consultancy, starring two high placed Obama-era
officials and one of the Imperial City's more successful denizens -- Michele Flournoy.
Flournoy may not be a household name anywhere but the Beltway, but when she met Sergio
Aguirre and Nitin Chadda (Chiefs of staff to UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter respectively) she was already trading lucratively on her stints in two
Democratic administrations. In fact, according to Guyer, by 2017 she was pulling nearly a half
a million dollars a year a year wearing a number of hats: senior advisor for Boston Consulting
Group (where she helped increase their defense contracts to $32 million by 2016), founder and
CEO of the Democratic leaning Center for a New American Security, senior fellow at Harvard's
Belfer Center, and a member of various corporate boards.
Hungry to get their own consulting business going after Hillary Clinton's stunning loss in
2016, according to Guyer, Aguirre and Chadda approached Flournoy for her starpower inside the
Blob. Flournoy did not want "to have a firm with her name on it alone," so they sought and
added Tony Blinken, former Under Secretary of State and "right hand man" to Joe Biden for 20
years. WestExec Advisors, named after the street alongside the West Wing of the White House,
was born. "The name WestExec Advisors trades on its founders' recent knowledge of the highest
echelons of decision-making," writes Guyer. "It also suggests they'll be walking down WestExec
toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue someday soon."
Soon the firm was raking in corporate contracts and the high sums that go with it. They
weren't lobbying per se (wink, wink) but their names and connections provided the grease on the
skids their clients needed to make things happen in Washington. They shrewdly partnered with a
private equity group and a Google affiliate. Before long, Guyer says, they did not need to
market: CEO's were telling other CEO's to give them a call. More:
The founders told executives they would share their "passion" for helping new companies
navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon contracts. They told giant defense
contractors how to explain cutting-edge technologies to visitors from Congress. Their
approach worked, and clients began to sign up.
One was an airline, another a global transportation company, a third a company that
makes drones that can almost instantly scan an entire building's interior. WestExec would
only divulge that it began working with "Fortune 100 types," including large U.S. tech;
financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S.
tech; and nonprofits.
The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli
artificial-intelligence company Windward.
To say that the Flournoy helped WestExec establish itself as one of the most successful of
the Beltway's defense and national security consultancies is an understatement. For sure,
Flournoy has often been underestimated -- she is not flamboyant, nor glamorous, and is
absolutely unrecognizable outside of the Washington market because she doesn't do media (though
she is popular on
the think tank conference circuit ). She's a technocrat -- smart and efficient and highly
bred for Washington's finely tuned managerial class. She is a courtier for sure, but she is no
sop. She has staying power, quietly forging relationships with the right people and not trying
too hard to make a name or express ideas that might conflict with doctrine. She no doubt
learned much in two stints in the Pentagon, which typically chews up the less capable,
greedier, more narcissistic neophytes (not to mention idealists). She's not exactly known as a
visionary, however, and one has to wonder which hat she is wearing when she expounds on current
defense threats, like
this piece about beefing up the Pentagon budget to confront China .
But what does it all mean? Flournoy has been at the forefront of strategy and policy in two
administrations marked by overseas interventions (Clinton from 1993 to 2000) and Obama (2009 to
2012). All of her aforementioned qualities have helped her to personally succeed and profit --
especially now, no doubt helping weapons contractors get deals on the Hill, as Guyer susses out
in his piece, not to mention how well-placed she would be for an incoming Biden Administration.
But has it been in the best interest of the country? I think not. For this, she is queen of the
Blob.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.394.0_en.html#goog_87831358 00:12 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But elite is as elite does. She went from Beverly Hills High School to Harvard to Oxford,
and then back to Harvard, before landing a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.
In between government perches, she did consulting and started CNAS in hopes of creating a
shadow national security council for Hillary Clinton. When Clinton didn't get the nomination,
Flournoy and her colleagues supported Obama and helped populate his administration,
supporting the military surge in Afghanistan and prolonging the war. She was called the
"mastermind"
behind Obama's Afghan strategy, which we now know was a failure, an effort at futility and
prolonging the inevitable. In fact, we know now that most of the war establishment was
lying through its teeth . But that hasn't stopped her from getting clients. They pay for
her influence, not her ability to win wars.
Queen of the Blob, Queen of Business as Usual -- a business, as we well know from Guyer's
excellent reporting, that pays off bigtime. But it has never paid off for the rest of America.
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
I wish that you would cover this equally in both parties; the near entire senior level of
the political apparatus (apart from the few individuals truly invested in the best for all
Americans) has become corrupted informing the policies, or lack thereof; whether implemented,
ignored, or written into law.
We really need to get these "Blob" people out of our government. Electing Trump didn't fix
the problem, and judging by this article, electing Biden won't either. Half of them people
aren't even recognizably American. They're global elites, and they'll continue to use
Americans and what's left of America to further their globalist agenda. With someone like
Flournoy, selling powerful US technology to known spies and thieves like the Israelis, who
take our tech, copy it, and sell it to enemies like China, only scratches the surface of
what's going on. She should be in prison after all the damage she's done to America, not
looking forward to yet another national security role in which she can get more Americans
killed, wreck more foreign countries, and waste and steal more billions of taxpayer
money.
Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid. Do you think that Mr. Fluornoy that those who work for her would
have had anything overturned at the Supreme Court because they were too lazy to complete the
paperwork?
"Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid."
I have to agree that Trump's administration is devoid of competent people, but don't
forget that it was incompetents like Flournoy that got Trump elected.
If you want to ID the individual most likely for President Trump winning, look up Joel
Benenson. He was Hilary Clinton's chief of strategy and was convinced that Trump could not
win any of the blue wall states. Ms. Fluornoy had nothing to do with that. Mr. Fluornoy would
have been the Secretary of Defense in a Hillary Clinton Administration and probably would
have been more competent that the current Secretary of Defense.
You would have done better just to critique her article in Foreign Affairs. As it is, you
sound like you're mad at Michele because she makes more money than you do (presumably).
I think that it is a bit unfair, given the fact that the odds are stack the way they are.
Ms. Vlahos has dedicated many years (they are so many she only whispers the number) on issues
related with foreign policy. The path she has chosen is the harder path, the ethical, and
moral one, which was never going to pay. If Ms. Vlahos is incensed, I bet that it is not
because of the money, but because she sees that in Washington DC, only crime and wanton
murder pays. She is accusing Ms Flournoy that she is a sellout to the crime syndicate, like a
cop that has started herself supporting the drug trafficking.
You should know that people believe in more things than only making money. Ms. Flournoy it
seems, has decided that she wants a piece of the cake and to hell with this absurd idea of
"arms to plowshares"....
Ms. Valhos can speak for herself. No one should project onto others their values. But it
does seem that Valhos does make a point that Flournoy does not have any guiding philosophy .
Except to be in a position to make a fine living from her contacts.
Could be that Flournoy is more greedy than not. She sure has the resume that would get her
into any job which she wanted to interview for. And she paid her dues also.
When one looks at Valhos's resume it likewise is impressive. She too it seems to be proud
of her connection to the elites. We should not condem either. We all want our children to
excell. Unless Flournoy is an unindicted co conspirator, this article is just a piece of
fluff. Too much time on Valhos's hands perhaps?
While I don't have anything else to do, I had hoped to read some good dirt. Alas all I got
was one high achieving person carping bout another person of similar achievement. Bless them
both.
The dirt presented is facilitating arms contracts. By peddling the need of strong military
and war. Being a merchant of death, which Ms. Vlahos doesn't seem to be, disqualifies Ms.
Flournoy entirely. of anything.
Not sure what you mean " poorly for it". I tend not to get wrapped around the axle . But
like it when someone comments on me personally. Lost perspective in old age. Would like to
know more what you mean. Unless you just want to be mean
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
That's a bit harsh don't you think? I remember that time on September 11, 2001, I was in
the New York area when it happened, I even had a close acquaintance who died in the Twin
Towers. I remember when America was united in its blood lust, it its ravenous quest for
revenge, ... revenge on anything and anyone. When America's vengeful eye was set on the
Taliban government of Afghanistan, it was off to the races. Left and Right, liberal and
conservative, Democrat and Republican, ... all were united in avenging 9/11 on the evil
Taliban and Afghan tribal peoples for harboring OBL. And I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and
Miss Flournoy were united as well in wanting someone to pay ... am I right? So don't give me
this BS about 'us' and 'them' okay? America is a democracy, the American people get the
government they vote for, they get the President, Senators and Members of Congress they vote
for, that means they also get the flunkies, hangers on and entourages of think tankers and
careerists they vote for. Understand? You get what you deserve, you don't get to whine and
complain when you're leaders are incompetent and corrupt okay? So don't give me this 'us and
them' nonsense and absolve yourself of the blood lust you once had all those years ago on
September 11, 2001.
No, liberals were not for taking it out on the Afghan tribal peoples. We were for getting
those responsible, and sorry no, we didn't include the Afghan tribal people in on that too,
despite any sympathies some of them may have had for AQ.
We had no 'blood lust' and we don't believe in collective punishment.
Did you just say liberals "don't believe in collective punishment"? I'm gonna give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lock-step in support of the #BLM and Critical Race
Theory...
But your other point about liberals being anti-war is also flawed. Just connect the
foreign intervention (not just wars, but also funding to foreign opposition groups) with some
humanitarian urgency (think of those Afghan women!) and liberals have always advocated for
the same foreign policies than neoconservatives.
"...I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and Miss Flournoy..."
It's been decades since I've seen the word "Miss" used in print - except when I write to
my granddaughter. In my profession, I write to women all the time, and although it used to be
that unmarried ones were quite accepting of - and indeed expecting to receive - missives from
me addressing them as such, I would be embarrassed to use that appellation when addressing
adult women today in a professional or unacquainted capacity. Now, I only use it for women
who wish it - old women, unmarried Catholic women and irascible old-school lesbians.
Ah, yes. Highly educated, multiple degrees, cultivated....and extremely dangerous. All of
that wonderful education dedicated to wanton killing and influence peddling. These people,
the hidden professionals of pull, are the most difficult to fight because unlike a politician
or a bureaucrat they are nearly invisible. She can only be effective if she is not seen. To
her, public exposure is toxic. So expose away! Make her name known to everyone.
"... Glorifying war is disturbing but so is the normalization of war. Most do not realize that large standing armies and large police forces were unknown/unusual only a century ago. ..."
"... And very few understand the mentality of the power-elite or how they have secreted themselves and their objectives behind gated communities, political divisiveness, and unaccountable 'national security' bullshit (more like 'war strategy'). ..."
Glorifying war is disturbing but so is the normalization of war. Most do not
realize that large standing armies and large police forces were unknown/unusual only a
century ago.
And very few understand the mentality of the power-elite or how they have secreted
themselves and their objectives behind gated communities, political divisiveness, and
unaccountable 'national security' bullshit (more like 'war strategy').
The ideologies of the Empire are: neoConservativism(a form of aristocracy);neoLiberalism(a form of facism); and Zionism(a form of
colonialism).
In short, a combination of the worst inclinations in the Western tradition.
I have to confess, I'm having a hard time getting past the headline. There's so much about it that screams of a policy flak who knows how to
present things as facts when they are anything but, and lead you into the piece already
believing that (a) Britain has been the victim of more than one attack by Russia, (b) that a
country supposedly friendless, without allies and with its economy reeling and staggering from
punishing sanctions still somehow has sufficient power to not only grip Europe, but to squeeze
it until it squeaks, and (c) Britain can do something about it.
REPORT THIS AD
Well, let's look; if Mr. Straw is totally unconcerned about potential embarrassment. there's
nothing holding us back, is there? As we have often done before, let's look at each of the
'attacks' Russia is supposed to have visited upon Britain. Ready? Litvinenko.
Litvinenko is
supposed to have ingested Polonium 210 – a uniquely Russian isotope, although the
United States buys enough Polonium from Russia nearly every month to have killed Litvinenko
about 8,000 times – which was slipped to him by two Russian agents in the Pine Bar in
London. Polonium traces were subsequently found all over London, including on documents
Litvinenko had touched, a Fax machine at fellow collaborator Boris Berzovsky's house, and in a
cab in which Litvinenko had ridden, which was so toxic thereafter that it had to be withdrawn
from service. The problem with that is that neither of Litvinenko's accused murderers was with
him in the cab, or touched the documents he handled but Litvinenko never touched Polonium with
his hands. He swallowed it, in tea, and once inside him it could not contaminate anything else
unless Litvinenko licked it, because Polonium – despite its toxicity – is a
low-alpha isotope which cannot penetrate skin. Litvinenko was, remarkably, covered from head to
toe in skin.
Litvinenko produced a passionately and eloquently-written deathbed accusation which tabbed
Vladimir Putin as his murderer, because he – Litvinenko – 'knew too much',
including Putin's secret pedophilia, evidence of which was the subject of KGB videotapes made
while Putin was a student, although the first personal video recorder (the Sony Betamax) was
not introduced until the year Putin graduated. Litvinenko himself could barely order a cup of
coffee in English, but that puzzle was solved when Alexander Goldfarb – a former nuclear
scientist in Russia and a close confidante of Boris Berezovsky – stepped up to say that
Litvinenko had 'dictated it to him'. Just as an interesting aside, Litvinenko had bragged to
his brother how he had lied to British authorities before in the case of a supposed murder
attempt against Boris Berezovsky by the Russian state, using a poisoned pen. This fake murder
plot was successfully used by Berzovsky to argue against deportation from Great Britain.
Anyway, we don't want to go on and on about Litvinenko – how believable is the British
tale of his assassination by the Russian state? Polonium traces all over London in places the
alleged assassins had never visited could not have been left by Litvinenko, because he never
touched Polonium with his hands, and it cannot penetrate skin. Polonium was not discovered in
his urine until after he was dead. We will never know if radiation poisoning made his hair fall
out, because his head was shaved by one of Berezovsky's dissident Chechen sidekicks. Berezovsky
himself also turned up dead in England, after losing a major legal case, having supposedly hung
himself with his tie inside a locked bathroom at his home. Coincidentally, Polonium as a murder
weapon led straight back to Russia (if we assume we did not know about the American purchases
of Polonium, which had the added cachet of bearing the telltale signature of having been made
in a Russian nuclear reactor), and would have been a breathtakingly stupid choice for a Russian
assassin. Still, they almost got away with it – British doctors were totally on the wrong
track, and the alleged assassins had already left the country, when an 'anonymous tipster'
(*cough* Goldfarb *cough*) suggested they check for Polonium 210.
The Skripals – yes, 'pon my word, old chap; what a nefarious example of Russian
ruthlessness. Probably ordered straight from the top, by Vladimir Putin himself – "Will
no one rid me of this troublesome has-been KGB agent who has been out of Russia since 2010:
would that I had snuffed him then, instead of trading him to the UK in a spy swap!" Yes, I
know, already stupid, but it gets so much more unbelievable . Once
again, a distinctively Russian murder weapon; Novichok, a nerve agent manufactured from
commercially-available fertilizers and organophosphates. The helpful BBC miniseries Mr. Straw
speaks of was an exercise in retconning – retroactive connectivity, an after-the-fact fix
which explains what was unexplainable in previous versions. For instance, the co-poisoning of
Detective Nick Bailey, so ill he was nigh unto death.
Originally the story was that he was contaminated because he was one of the first
responders, when the Skripals were jerking and drooling on a public bench near the restaurant
where they had just eaten, in Salisbury. But the first passer-by, who helpfully attended them, just happened
to be none other than the senior medical officer in the British Army, and she was in no way
affected although she wore no protection than perhaps rubber gloves. Nick Bailey also wore
gloves, because it was cold. The next version had him entering the Skripal home – where
he was contaminated – via the back door. But the assassins had unhelpfully smeared the
poison on the front doorknob. Shit! So, unable to bring the assassins and the Skripals and Nick
Bailey all together at the same doorknob within the same period of lethality, the story was
changed again. Bailey had actually nipped next door, borrowed the spare key – the
existence of which was completely unknown to anyone prior to the television broadcast –
from a neighbour, and entered by the front door, where he became contaminated. It was touch and
go there for awhile, but he went home 18 days later, none the worse for his brush with one of
the deadliest nerve agents known to man. A nerve agent which, incidentally, was not known to
the elimination of other possibilities to have killed anyone. Dawn Sturgess died later, in
Amesbury, after spraying pure Novichok on her wrists from a fake perfume bottle, we are told.
But Dawn Sturgess was a known drug addict, Novichok as an aerosol spray would have taken effect
within seconds but she was not stricken for hours, and the medium of infection was not
discovered until three days after her death, sitting conspicuously on Charles Rowley's kitchen
counter, although the house had already been searched. Perfectly intact and waiting to be
discovered, although Charles Rowley's brother reported that the bottle had broken in his
brother's hands as Sturgess handed it back to him, which was how he became contaminated.
Another insultingly full-of-bullshit story that would not survive press scrutiny for an hour if
it had been Russia reporting a poisoning by British agents in Russia.
Well, I spent a lot longer on that than I meant to; let's move on. Suffice it to say that
while there indeed is 'overwhelming evidence' in both cases as Mr. Straw avers, it argues
strongly that Britain made up both scenarios, and not very competently, while there is actually
zero evidence that Russia had anything to do with either except for the screaming 'made in
Russia' agents used, which Russian assassins would be beyond foolish to have chosen for that
very reason. Would it make sense for a British assassin in Moscow to bump off a former double
agent by caving in his skull with a King Dick claw
hammer , and then leave it at the scene? Do international test scores suggest an
otherworldly degree of reasoning ability on the part of Britons, while Russians are abysmally
stupid by comparison? Not that I have ever seen.
Straw claims an 'ever-present threat of Russia's efforts to destabilise the UK and European
Union.' Is there anything more destabilizing between the two than
Brexit ? Whose idea was that – Putin's?
Mr. Straw claims Russia's alleged belligerence results from insecurity, a feeling of
weakness and is a function of how many more times Russia's defense budget other countries and
alliances spend. How do you figure? The best fighter aircraft the USA can come up with, for
more than $80 Million
a copy , is the F-35. The F-35 was unable to
defeat previous-generation aircraft from its own armed forces. The Sukhoi S-35 costs less
than half as much, and while western sites which match the two grant all sorts of 'excitement points' to the
F-35 for its technology and Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) performance, the SU-35 is more
maneuverable, has a higher rate of climb, more thrust, has double the speed, and while the
F-35's BVR performance is rated much better, its engagement range with its embarked missile is
only a bit better than half the SU-35's.
"However, despite high spending on its military, it is no match for the US, which spends
12 times as much, nor China, which spends four times its budget. Russia's population is
declining, and its GDP per head is just 50th in the world. It feels isolated, surrounded by
potentially hostile forces, and weak."
I was led to believe by some other online sites (the names of which I've now forgotten)
that Sergei Skripal's neighbour, from whom Detective Nick Bailey must have borrowed the
spare key 'coz who else could have held it, was none other than Pablo Miller. I'd have
thought the D-notice imposed on British media compelling them never to refer to him back in
March 2018 was still current. How would the BBC or those Guardian journos who wrote the
script for the recent TV series have avoided referring to him when the detective was trying
to locate a spare key? I admit I haven't seen the TV series yet and from what I've seen and
heard about it so far, it's not worth a look.
Thanks for the new post, Mark, and for making it as detailed and riveting as ever.
The D-Notice system (DSMA?) technically only requires voluntary compliance but
curiously all the British media consistently go along with it Ho! Ho! Ho!
..Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests and are not legally
enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are
generally complied with by the media
Thanks, Jennifer; I didn't really have to do much – Moscow Exile was kind and
psychic enough to print out Straw's whole editorial, else I might have had to subscribe to
The Independent to even see it. *Shudder*. And Straw just opened his head and let the
bullshit flow – I only had to redirect the stream a little here and there.
I don't think Miller was the neighbour, I seem to remember a different name nope, that
was Ross Cassidy, who was cited by John Helmer as perhaps the only person Skripal trusted
enough to have left a key with him, but he didn't live next door. Pablo Miller does indeed
also live in Salisbury, but I have seen no mention of where,
Pablo Miller, Mark Urban and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon all served in the same tank
regiment in the British Army. I have seen one other source – can't remember where now
– that claimed Christopher Steele also served in the same regiment, but that's not
true – he was recruited straight out of Cambridge at graduation, by MI6, and worked
for them for 22 years. That's not to say there were not connections, though – Steele
was also Case Officer for Litvinenko, and was allegedly the first to assess that
Litvinenko's death was 'a Russian state hit'.
"Over a career that spanned more than 20 years, Steele performed a series of roles,
but always appeared to be drawn back to Russia; he was, sources say, head of MI6's Russia
desk. When the agency was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander
Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to
plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele,
sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state
"hit"."
You'll enjoy that piece by The Grauniad – it goes on and on about how first-rate
credible Steele was, and how the quality of his work is above reproach. His legendary
'dossier', obviously, has since fallen apart and been dismissed as fanciful
disinformation.
The spare key was found in the usual place: inside the cane rod of the little angling
garden gnome modelled on His Imperial Majesty Tsar Nicholas II, stood by that awkward
entrance to the back porch. No need for nosy neighbours. (I added this detail for inclusion
in Version 4 of The Skripals, due out in January 2021.)
Then the Englanders bombed the great porcelain treasure house in Dresden in 1945 and
the world heritage was vaporised. Read Edmund de Waal The White Road
I didn't know about the porcelain repository in Dresden. Thanks.
@uncle tungsten | Jul 12 2020 23:24 utc | 113
And then some oriental gave [the Europeans] the fork and saved them to colonise the
world. So it goes.
I guess it's really true that no good deed goes unpunished.
Danny Sjursen goes undercover in Trumplandia and comes back with this reflection on the U.S.
president's loss of loyalty among soldiers and veterans.
...As both the Covid-19 crisis and the
militarization of the police in the streets of American cities have made clear, the
imperial power that we veterans fought for abroad is the same one some of us are now struggling
against at home and the two couldn't be more intimately linked. Our struggle is, at least in
part, over who gets to define patriotism.
Should the sudden wave of military and veteran dissent keep rising, it will invariably crash
against the pageantry patriots of
Chickenhawk America who attended that Tulsa rally and we'll all face a new and critical
theater in this nation's culture wars. I don't pretend to know whether such protests will last
or military dissent will augur real change of any sort. What I do know is what my favorite rock
star, Bruce Springsteen, used to repeat before
live renditions of his song "Born to Run":
William H Warrick MD , July 10, 2020 at 13:21
oBOMBa destroyed the Anti-War Movement. When he got in the White House all of them began
going to Brunch instead of Peace/Anti-War marches.
Thanks, Jennifer; I didn't really have to do much – Moscow Exile was kind and
psychic enough to print out Straw's whole editorial, else I might have had to subscribe to
The Independent to even see it. *Shudder*. And Straw just opened his head and let the
bullshit flow – I only had to redirect the stream a little here and there.
I don't think Miller was the neighbour, I seem to remember a different name nope, that was
Ross Cassidy, who was cited by John Helmer as perhaps the only person Skripal trusted enough
to have left a key with him, but he didn't live next door. Pablo Miller does indeed also live
in Salisbury, but I have seen no mention of where,
Pablo Miller, Mark Urban and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon all served in the same tank regiment
in the British Army. I have seen one other source – can't remember where now –
that claimed Christopher Steele also served in the same regiment, but that's not true –
he was recruited straight out of Cambridge at graduation, by MI6, and worked for them for 22
years. That's not to say there were not connections, though – Steele was also Case
Officer for Litvinenko, and was allegedly the first to assess that Litvinenko's death was 'a
Russian state hit'.
"Over a career that spanned more than 20 years, Steele performed a series of roles, but
always appeared to be drawn back to Russia; he was, sources say, head of MI6's Russia desk.
When the agency was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko
in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way
through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who
correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit"."
You'll enjoy that piece by The Grauniad – it goes on and on about how first-rate
credible Steele was, and how the quality of his work is above reproach. His legendary
'dossier', obviously, has since fallen apart and been dismissed as fanciful
disinformation.
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
Special to Consortium News
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however
misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe
McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was
allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years
after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28,
2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed
him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment"
claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected --
the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century .
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
PleaseContributeto Consortium News on its25th Anniversary
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad.You cannot destroy what does not exist;like Democracy in
these United States.Nor God or Putin could.This has always being a fallacy.This is not a
democracy;same thing with”comunist China or the USSR.Those two were never
socialist.There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter .Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure . As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy
scoiety of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies. Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles(fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
1. the USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
2 Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ,”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories.
The book was a big best seller in Germany.
Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
This neocon thinks that Russia will ever Trust the USA and "collective West". Credibility is gone, probably for decadesto
come.
Notable quotes:
"... In the presence of Russia's previously expansive relationship with Europe, a Russian pivot to Asia may have remained largely symbolic. In the presence of Western sanctions, however, it has instead become truly historic: Russia and China are closer today than at any point since the Sino-Soviet split that Nixon's China policy seized advantage of. ..."
"... pax Sinaica ..."
"... Paul Stronski, a former director for Russia and Central Asia on the US National Security Council, identifies the implications better. Given that China "currently receives most of its primary imports through sea lanes from the south", Stronski writes, "the Russian Far East provides not only a diversified source a reliable and rich supply from its northern borders could also function as a hedge against a US Navy blockade". ..."
"... Australia's foreign policy elite is usually quick to talk up its "post-European" credentials. But on Russia they have been content to be guided by an uncritical neo-Atlanticist perspective . While Europe may fear a Russia that is too strong, Asia should fear a Russia that is too weak. ..."
Yes, to balance China, let's
bring Russia in from the cold
The West's isolation of Russia has helped Moscow acquiesce
in an expanded Chinese presence it would once have resented.
Last month, US
President Donald Trump surprised allies by calling for Russia and Australia to be admitted together with
India and South Korea to an expanded G-7.
Writing in support of
the idea, federal Liberal MP Dave Sharma has
cast
the
argument as a reversal of Nixon's 1972
opening
to Mao's China
, a "reshuffling of the deck" to balance China's growing shadow in world affairs by
peeling off a sanctioned but far from shrunken "
global
Russia
" increasingly closely attached to China's side.
Given China's
increasingly agonistic approach to Australia and Indo-Pacific states, such a policy commends itself by its
realist credentials. But it would also acknowledge the role Western policies have played in accelerating the
Sino-Russian rapprochement.
Certainly, Moscow and
Beijing's "axis of convenience" predates the
sanctions
imposed
by the West on Russia in 2014: the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (a forum for military cooperation and
intelligence sharing originally focused on counter-terrorism) was
founded
in
2002; Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia's own "
pivot
to the East
", before the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, in 2013.
Russia and China are
undoubtedly
closer
today
than six years ago, but there is more to it than that. In the presence of Russia's previously expansive
relationship with Europe, a Russian pivot to Asia may have remained largely symbolic. In the presence of
Western sanctions, however, it has instead become truly historic: Russia and China are closer today than at
any point since the Sino-Soviet split that Nixon's China policy seized advantage of.
In 2018, 3500 Chinese
troops crossed the border to join 300,000 Russian counterparts in military exercises
billed
by
the Russian ministry of defence as the largest its forces had participated in since 1981. Through a
partnership with Russia's sanctioned Sberbank (Russia's biggest state-owned bank), Huawei
seems
this
year likely to win not only construction rights to Russia's 5G network, but also a vote of confidence in the
reliability of Chinese technology that will commend a "tech"
pax
Sinaica
to other BRICS and emerging states.
[Image removed] Vostok-2018
military manoeuvres involving troops from China (Kremlin.ru)
Economically, China
has not only cushioned the economic blow of Western sanctions. It has overcome longstanding Russian
sensitivities about Chinese investment in Moscow's vast but underpopulated and underdeveloped Asian
territories. (In the Russian Far East alone, an area almost the size of Australia, 6.3 million Russians look
across the border at 110 million Chinese in China's three northernmost provinces.)
Delivered via the
4857-kilometre
Eastern
Siberian Oil Pipeline
, Russian oil exports to China more than doubled between 2013 and 2016, when
Russia
overtook
Saudi
Arabia as China's major oil supplier, allowing Beijing to substitute a continental supplier to its north for
one dependent on a maritime route policed by the US Navy to its south. Meanwhile, under a
deal
signed
by Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in May 2014 (just months after Western nations first imposed
Crimea-related sanctions), the first deliveries of $400 billion worth of Russian gas from fields north of
Lake Baikal arrived in China via the Chinese-funded "Power of Siberia" line last December. A "Power of
Siberia" II is to follow.
In seeking to bring
Russia in from the cold to balance China, Australia should make common cause with Tokyo and Seoul, as it
should also with New Delhi. India has long recognised the importance of Russia to the Asian balance.
Moscow once frowned
on Chinese investment in Siberia's mining sector. But in the contemporary climate, China
obtained
its
first stake in a Russian gold, iron and copper mining venture in 2015, 400 kilometres from the border. With
Russia China's largest supplier of timber, Chinese firms are deeply involved in one of the region's major
employers. And barely an hour's flight from Beijing, Siberia's open spaces have enormous potential as
crowded North Asia's "lungs" –
before
Covid-19
struck, the rush to build hotel (and, where relevant, cruise ship) facilities had begun, from Lake Baikal to
Vladivostok.
When in 2012 Russia
established a Federal Ministry for the Russian Far East, then-President Dmitri Medvedev warned of the danger
of Russia's Asian territories becoming a mere "resource appendage" of China. Reflecting the post-2014 shift
in Russian attitudes, those qualms seem to have evaporated.
Thus, Russia and
China announced
plans
for
a $5.3 billion project for two "International Transport Corridors" linking China's landlocked Heilongjang
and Jilin provinces to port facilities in Russia's nearby Maritime Province. If constructed, such corridors
would provide China with direct access not only to the Sea of Japan (unhindered by the US Navy and its
allies Japan and South Korea), but also an expanded presence in a province, which, though including the Far
East's biggest cities (Khabarovsk: 577,000; and Vladivostok: 605,000) has only been Russian since 1858.
Modern Chinese maps often designate it as a historical Chinese territory.
Elsewhere, too, the
West's isolation of Russia has helped Moscow acquiesce in an expanded Chinese presence it would once have
resented. Strategically and economically, the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia are a
Russian-Chinese condominium, with resource-rich Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan as crucial planks in China's
Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Even in the Arctic,
Russia's traditional resistance to a larger Chinese role
has
softened
. Just as China has sought (and obtained) recognition as "near-Arctic" state, so Russian
authorities have suggested a role for China in constructing the infrastructure to connect the BRI to
Russia's Northern Sea Route.
[Image removed]
Construction
of the Power of Siberia gas pipeline (Kremlin.ru)
That Western
sanctions would drive a Russian rapprochement with China was predictable. Even now that it has happened,
however, a certain "operating fallacy" prevents some analysts from extracting any downside in this for the
West. As Ariel Cohen
wrote
in
Forbes
last
year, "By anchoring itself to China with Power of Siberia pipeline, Russia closes many doors, and in the
long run, endangers its own energy trade – and national sovereignty."
But the mere fact
that something is "bad" for Russia doesn't make it "good" for the West.
Balancing China
alone is far more realistic than balancing China and Russia together.
Paul Stronski, a
former director for Russia and Central Asia on the US National Security Council,
identifies
the
implications better. Given that China "currently receives most of its primary imports through sea lanes from
the south", Stronski writes, "the Russian Far East provides not only a diversified source a reliable and
rich supply from its northern borders could also function as a hedge against a US Navy blockade".
Alive to Russia's
significance to the Asian balance, Japan
imposed
a
weaker, more "symbolic" sanctions regime than did Australia, following the US and Europe. Faithful to its
"New Northern Policy", South Korea imposed
none
at all
. In 2018, the value of Korean trade with Russia rose almost a third.
In seeking to bring
Russia in from the cold to balance China, Australia should make common cause with Tokyo and Seoul, as it
should also with New Delhi. India has long recognised the importance of Russia to the Asian balance, has not
imposed sanctions, and is
exploring
pipelines.
To "exclude" China
from Russian Asia is as pointless as it is undesirable. Not
all
Chinese
investment in Siberia or the Russian Far East is unwelcome: the poorer, emptier, and more underdeveloped
these territories remain, the less Russia will have to contribute to any future, informal "coalition of the
balancing" in Asia.
But the foreign
investment needed should be diverse, lest the Chinese commercial penetration that is already occurring make
a continental-size region of vast natural resources and immune to Western blockade, an effective extension
of Chinese strategic space – a "
Central
Powers 2.0
" stretching from Hainan to the Arctic Circle and Baltic.
As Sharma concedes,
to bring Russia in from the cold, "the statecraft required is not easy, and the realpolitik underpinning it
might be hard to stomach". And – although in the history of "Russia-gate", unsubstantiated intelligence
leaks to the press
have
a record
of proving over-egged – in a week that has seen the apparent revelation of Russian bounties on
coalition troops in Afghanistan, it will be a particularly hard sell.
But balancing China
alone
is
far more realistic than balancing China and Russia
together.
Certainly, the asymmetry in the relationship is unpleasant for Russia. But it does nothing to undermine the
advantages that accrue to China.
Australia's foreign policy elite is usually quick to talk up its "post-European"
credentials. But on Russia they have been content to be guided by an uncritical
neo-Atlanticist
perspective
. While Europe may fear a Russia that is too strong, Asia should fear a Russia that is too
weak.
"... Auten, identified by congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, never confirmed the most explosive allegations in the dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, cutting a number of corners in the verification process, Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pointed out in his December report on FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. ..."
The unnamed FBI "Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" cited by the Justice Department's watchdog for failing to properly vet the
so-called Steele dossier before it was used to justify spying on the Trump campaign teaches a class on the ethics of spying at a
small Washington-area college, records show.
The senior FBI analyst, Brian J. Auten, has taught the course
at Patrick Henry College since 2010, including the 11-month period in 2016 and 2017 when he and a counterintelligence team at FBI
headquarters electronically monitored an adviser to the Trump campaign based on false rumors from the dossier and forged evidence.
Auten, identified by congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, never confirmed the most explosive allegations
in the dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, cutting a number of corners in the verification process,
Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pointed out in his December report on FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.
By January 2017, the lead analyst had ample evidence the dossier was bogus. Auten could not get sources who provided information
to Steele to support the dossier's allegations during interviews. And collections from the wiretaps of Trump aide Carter Page failed
to reveal any confirmation of the claims. Auten even came across exculpatory evidence indicating Page was not the Russian asset the
dossier alleged, but was in fact a CIA asset helping the U.S. spy on Moscow.
Nonetheless, he and the FBI continued to use the Steele material as a basis for renewing their FISA monitoring of Page, who was
never charged with a crime.
Auten did not respond to requests for comment, and the FBI declined to comment.
In his report, Horowitz wrote that the analyst told his team of inspectors that he did not have any "pains or heartburn" over
the accuracy of the Steele reports. As for Steele's reliability as an FBI informant, Horowitz said, the analyst merely "speculated"
that his prior reporting was sound and did not see a need to "dig into" his handler's case file, which showed that past tips from
Steele had gone uncorroborated and were never used in court.
According to the IG report, Auten also wasn't concerned about Steele's anti-Trump bias or that his work was commissioned by Trump's
political opponent, calling the fact he worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign "immaterial." Perhaps most disturbing, the analyst
withheld the fact that Steele's main source disavowed key dossier allegations from a memo Auten prepared summarizing a meeting he
had with that source.
Auten appears to have violated his own stated "golden rule" for spying. A 15-year supervisor at the bureau, Auten has written
that he teaches students in his national security class at the Purcellville, Va., college that the FBI applies "the least intrusive
standard" when it considers surveilling U.S. citizens under investigation to avoid harm to "a subject's reputation, dignity and privacy."
At least three Senate oversight committees are seeking to question Auten about fact-checking lapses, as well as
"grossly inaccurate statements" he allegedly made to Horowitz, as part of the committee's investigation of the FBI's handling
of wiretap warrants the bureau first obtained during the heat of the 2016 presidential race.
FBI veterans worry Auten's numerous missteps signal a deeper rot within the bureau beyond top brass who appeared to have an animus
toward Donald Trump, such as former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as well as subordinates Lisa Page and
Peter Strzok. They fear these main players in the scandal enlisted group-thinking career officials like Auten to ensure an investigative
result.
"Anyone in his position has tremendous access to information and is well-positioned to manipulate information if he wanted to
do so," said Chris Swecker, a 24-year veteran of the FBI who served as assistant director of its criminal investigative division,
where he oversaw public corruption cases.
"Question is, was it deliberate manipulation or just rank incompetence?" he added. "How much was he influenced by McCabe, Page,
Strzok and other people we know had a deep inherent bias?"
Auten is a central, if overlooked, figure in the Horowitz report and the overall FISA abuse scandal, though his identity is hidden
in the 478-page IG report, which refers to him throughout only as "Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" or "Supervisory Intel Analyst."
In fact, the 51-year-old analyst shows up at every major juncture in the FISA application process.
Auten was assigned to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation from its opening in July 2016 and supervised its analytical efforts
throughout 2017. He played a key supportive role for the agents preparing the FISA applications, including reviewing the probable-cause
section of the applications and providing the agents with information about Steele's sub-sources noted in the applications. He also
helped prepare and review the renewal drafts.
Auten assisted the case agents in providing information on the reliability of Steele and his sources and reviewing for accuracy
their information cited in the body of the applications, as well as all the footnotes. His job was also to fill gaps in the FISA
application or bolster weak areas.
In addition, Auten personally met with Steele and his "primary sub-source," reportedly a Russian émigré living in the West, as
well as former MI6 colleagues of Steele. He also met with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and processed the dirt Ohr fed the
FBI from Glenn Simpson, the political opposition research contractor who hired Steele to compile the anti-Trump dossier on behalf
of the Clinton campaign.
Auten was involved in the January 2017 investigation of then-Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, according to internal
emails sent by then-FBI counterintelligence official Strzok.
What's more, the analyst helped draft a summary of the dossier attached to the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment
on Russian interference, which described Steele as "reliable." Other intelligence analysts argued against incorporating the dossier
allegations -- including rumors about potentially compromising sexual material -- in the body of the report because they viewed them
as "internet rumor."
According to the IG report, "The Supervisory Intel Analyst was one of the FBI's leading experts on Russia." Auten wrote a
book on the Russian
nuclear threat during the Cold War, and has taught graduate courses about U.S. and Russian nuclear strategy.
Still, he could not corroborate any of the allegations of Russian "collusion" in the dossier, which he nonetheless referred to
as "Crown material," as if it were intelligence from America's closest ally, Britain.
To the contrary, "According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the FBI ultimately determined that some of the allegations contained
in Steele's election reporting were inaccurate," the IG report revealed. Yet the analyst and the case agents he supported continued
to rely on his dossier to obtain the warrants to spy on Page -- and by extension, potentially the Trump campaign and presidency --
through incidental collections of emails, text messages and intercepted phone calls.
Steele Got the Benefit of the Doubt
According to the IG report , the supervisory
intelligence analyst not only failed to corroborate the Steele dossier, but gave Steele the benefit of the doubt every time sources
or developments called into question the reliability of his information or his own credibility. In many cases, he acted more as an
advocate than a fact-checker, while turning a blind eye to the dossier's red flags. Examples:
When a top Justice national security lawyer initially blocked the Crossfire team's attempts to obtain a FISA warrant, Auten
proactively turned to the dossier to try to push the case over the line. In an email to FBI lawyers, he forwarded an unsubstantiated
claim from Steele's Report 94 that Page secretly met with a Kremlin-tied official in July 2016, and asked, "Does this put us at
least *that* much closer to a full FISA on [Carter Page]?" (Emphasis in original).
Even though internal FBI emails reveal Auten knew Steele was working for the Clinton campaign by early January 2017, he did
not share this information with the Justice lawyer or the FISA court before helping agents reapply for warrants. He told the IG
he viewed the potential for political influences on the Steele reporting as "immaterial."
While most of Steele's past reporting as an informant for the FBI had not been corroborated and had never been used in a criminal
proceeding, including his work for an international soccer corruption investigation, Auten wrote that it had in fact been "corroborated
and used in criminal proceedings." His language made it into the FISA renewal applications to help convince the court Steele was
still reliable, despite his leaking the FBI's investigation to media outlet Mother Jones in late October 2016. Auten had merely
"speculated" that Steele's prior reporting was sound without reviewing an internal file documenting his track record.
Auten's notes from a meeting with Steele in early October 2016 reveal that Steele described one of his main dossier sources
-- identified in the IG report only as "Person 1," but believed to be Belarusian-American realtor Sergei Millian -- as a "boaster"
who "may engage in some embellishment." Yet the IG report noted the analyst "did not provide this description of Person 1 for
inclusion in the Carter Page FISA applications despite relying on Person 1's information to establish probable cause in the applications."
Auten failed to disclose to the FISA court negative feedback from British intelligence service colleagues of Steele. They
told Auten during a visit he made to London in December 2016 that Steele exercised "poor judgment" and pursued as sources "people
with political risk but no intel value," the IG report said.
In January 2017, Steele's primary sub-source told Auten that Steele "misstated or exaggerated" information he conveyed to
him in multiple sections of the dossier, according to a lengthy summary of the interview by the analyst. For instance, Steele
claimed that Kremlin-tied figures offered Page a bribe worth as much as $10 billion in return for lifting U.S. economic sanctions
on Russia. "We reviewed the texts [between Steele and the source] and did not find any discussion of a bribe," the IG report found.
Still, Auten let the rumor bleed into the FISA applications.
The primary sub-source also told the analyst he did not recall any discussion or mention of WikiLeaks conspiring with Moscow
to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails, or that the Russian leadership and the Trump campaign had a "well-developed
conspiracy of cooperation," as described by Steele in his Report 95. The primary sub-source "did not describe a 'conspiracy' between
Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign or state that Carter Page served as an 'intermediary' between [the campaign]
and the Russian government," the IG found. Yet "all four Carter Page FISA applications relied on Report 95 to support probable
cause."
In addition, Auten's summary of the primary sub-source cast doubt on the dossier's allegation that the disclosure of DNC emails
to WikiLeaks was made in exchange for a GOP convention platform change regarding Ukraine. Yet this unsubstantiated rumor also
found its way into the applications. Confronted by Horowitz's investigators about all the discrepancies, the analyst offered excuses
for Steele. He said that while it was possible that Steele exaggerated or misrepresented information he received from the source,
it was also possible the source was lying to the FBI.
Even though the primary sub-source's account contradicted the allegations in Steele's reporting, the supervisory intel analyst
said he did not have any "pains or heartburn" about the accuracy of the Steele reporting.
Auten didn't try to get to the bottom of discrepancies between Steele and his sources until two months after the third and
final renewal application was filed. The analyst's September 2017 interview with Steele revealed clear bias against Trump. According
to the FBI's FD-302 summary of the interview, Steele and his London business partner, Christopher Burrows, who was also present,
described Trump as their "main opponent" and said that they were "fearful" about the negative impact of the Trump presidency on
the relationship between the United States and Britain.
The analyst also appeared to mislead, or at least misinform, the FBI's counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, by omitting
the primary sub-source's claim that Steele "exaggerated" much of the information in the dossier. In late February 2017, Auten
sent a two-page memo to Priestap briefing him about his meeting with the source, "but the memorandum did not describe the inconsistencies,"
the IG report noted.
Finally, recently declassified footnotes in the IG report directly contradict statements provided by Auten in the IG report
concerning the potential for Russian disinformation infiltrating Steele's reporting. The analyst told Horowitz's team that "he
had no information as of June 2017 that Steele's election reporting source network had been penetrated or compromised [by Russian
intelligence]." Yet, in January 2017, the FBI received a report that some of Steele's reporting "was part of a Russian disinformation
campaign" and in February 2017, the FBI received a second report that another part of Steele's reporting was "the product of [Russian
Intelligence Services] infiltrat[ing] a source into the network."
Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
recently questioned the analyst's candor and integrity in a
letter to the FBI. "We are deeply troubled by the grossly inaccurate statements by the supervisory intelligence analyst," they
wrote.
The powerful senators have asked the FBI to provide additional records shedding light on what the analyst and other officials
knew about Russian disinformation as they were drafting the FISA applications.
Meanwhile, Auten's name appears on a
list of witnesses Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham recently gained authorization to subpoena to testify before
his own panel investigating the FISA abuse scandal. Graham intends to focus on the investigators, including the lead analyst, who
interviewed Steele's primary sub-source in January 2017 and discovered the Steele allegations were nothing more than "bar talk,"
as Graham put it in a recent interview, and should never have been used to get a warrant in the first place, to say nothing of renewing
the warrant.
In a Dec. 6 letter to Horowitz, FBI Director
Christopher Wray informed the inspector general he had put every employee involved in the 2016-2017 FISA application process through
"additional training in ethics." The mandatory training included "an emphasis on privacy and civil liberties."
Wray also assured Horowitz that he was conducting a review of all FBI personnel who had responsibility for the preparation of
the FISA warrant applications and would take any appropriate action to deal with them.
It's not immediately known if Auten has undergone such a review or has completed the required ethics training. The FBI declined
comment.
"That analyst needs to be investigated internally," Swecker said.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Auten appears to have violated the ethics training he provides his students at Patrick Henry College.
"When I teach the topic of national security investigations to undergraduates, we cover micro-proportionality, discrimination,
and the 'least intrusive standard' via a tweaked version of the Golden Rule -- namely, if you were being investigated for a national
security issue but you knew yourself to be completely innocent, how would you want someone to investigate you?" Auten wrote in a
September 2016
article
in Providence magazine, headlined "Just Intelligence, Just Surveillance & the Least Intrusive Standard."
He wrote the six-page paper to answer the question: "Is an intelligence operation, national security investigation or act of surveillance
being initiated under the proper authorities for the right purposes? Will an intelligence operation, national security investigation
or act of surveillance achieve the good it is meant to? And, in the end, will the expected good be overwhelmed by the resulting harm
or damage arising out of the planned operation, investigation or surveillance act?"
"National security investigations are not ethics-free," he asserted, advising that a federal investigator should never forget
that "the intrusiveness or invasiveness of his tactics places a subject's reputation, dignity and privacy at risk and has the ability
to cause harm."
At the same time, Auten said more intrusive methods such as electronic eavesdropping may be justified -- "If it is judged that
the threat is severe or the targeted foreign intelligence is of key importance to U.S. interest or survival." National security "may
necessitate collection based on little more than suspicion." In these cases, he reasoned, the harm to the individual is outweighed
by the benefit to society.
"Surveillance is not life-threatening to the surveilled," he said.
However, Page, a U.S. citizen, told RealClearInvestigations that he received "numerous death threats" from people who believed
he was a "traitor," based on leaks to the media that the FBI suspected he was a Russian agent who conspired with the Kremlin to interfere
in the 2016 election.
Auten also rationalized the risk of "incidental" surveillance of non-targeted individuals, writing: "If the particular act of
surveillance is legitimately authorized, and the non-liable subject has not been intentionally targeted, any incidental surveillance
of the non-liable subject would be morally licit."
A member of the International Intelligence Ethics Association, Auten has lectured since 2010 on "intelligence and statecraft"
at Patrick Henry College, where he is an adjunct professor . He
also sits on the college's Strategic Intelligence Advisory Board.
FBI veterans say the analyst's lack of rigor raises alarms.
"I worked with intel analysts all the time working counterintelligence investigations," said former FBI Special Agent Michael
Biasello, a 25-year veteran of the FBI who spent 10 years in counterintelligence. "This analyst's work product was shoddy, and inasmuch
as these FISA affidavits concerned a presidential campaign, the information he provided [to agents] should have been pristine."
He suspects Auten was "hand-picked" by Comey or McCabe to work on the sensitive Trump case, which was tightly controlled within
FBI headquarters.
"The Supervisory Intel Analyst must be held accountable now, particularly where his actions were intentional, along with anyone
who touched those fraudulent [FISA] affidavits," Biasello said.
When Colin Powell of all people has to appear on MSNBC to slam
fake reporting you know mainstream media has lost the plot.
In a rare moment, the former Secretary of State under Bush slammed the wall-to-wall coverage
of the Russian bounties in Afghanistan story as "almost hysterical" . It's all the more awkard
for MSNBC, which had him on the network Thursday to talk about it, given he's one of those
'never Trump' Bush-era officials, who despite a legacy of having fed the world lie after lie to
invade Iraq, has since been given "resistance hero" status among liberals.
Describing that military commanders on the ground didn't give credence to The New York Times
claim that Russia's GRU was paying Taliban and other militants to kill American soldiers,
Powell said the media "got kind of out of control" in the first days after the initial report
weeks ago.
"I know that our military commanders on the ground did not think that it was as serious a
problem as the newspapers were reporting and television was reporting," Powell told MSNBC's
Andrea Mitchell. "It got kind of out of control before we really had an understanding of what
had happened. I'm not sure we fully understand now."
"It's our commanders who are going to go deal with this kind of a threat, using intelligence
given to them by the intelligence community," Powell continued. "But that has to be analyzed.
It has to be attested. And then you have to go find out who the enemy is. And I think we were
on top of that one, but it just got almost hysterical in the first few days."
He also deflated the ongoing manufactured atmosphere which seeks to maintain a perpetual
Washington hawkish position vis-a-vis Moscow, based on perceived "Russian aggression".
"I don't think we're in a position to go to war with the Russians," Powell said. "I know Mr.
Putin rather well. He's just figuring out a way to stay in power until 2036. The last thing
he's looking for is a war, and the last thing he's looking for is a war with the United States
of America."
"... Browder testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards ..."
"... Browder's Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it. ..."
"... She says there has been a violation of Article 165 of the criminal code. ..."
"... Browder translates that into Starova accusing his companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his testimony , Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky. ..."
"... Magnitsky's body on a cot in the hospital ward. ..."
"... Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Script: The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door. ..."
"... Magnitsky face shoulders on hospital-bed ..."
"... Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Browder doctored report claims a section illegible, third line. ..."
"... Russian document shows nothing is illegible. ..."
"... Dr. Robert Bux ..."
"... They do exist, but Browder did not give them to PHR. ..."
"... Forensic photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee ..."
"... Forensic schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries. ..."
"... closed craniocerebral injury ..."
"... No signs of a violent death detected." ..."
"... Magnitsky death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected ..."
Browder
testimony
to
Senate Judiciary Committee
claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards
.
The U.S. and UK are intensifying their collaborative Cold War against Russia. In Washington, calls for sanctions are based on
the fake "bountygate," and the UK has sanctioned selected Russians based on William Browder's Magnitsky hoax.
The "bountygate" charge that Russia paid militants to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan is unproved by U.S. intelligence
agencies and even discounted by the international wire-tapping National Security Agency (NSA). The UK
sanctions
against
25 Russians, judges and court officials, tax investigators, and prison doctors, are based on disproved claims by billionaire
investor William Browder that they were responsible for the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky.
Browder's Magnitsky story is a pillar of America's Russiagate, which has five. Before bountygate, there was the 2019 Mueller
Report which found no evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians, the Jan 2017 intelligence agencies'
charge
of
Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election which concludes with the admission that they had no proof; and the 2016
accusation that Russians had stolen Democratic National Committee emails, made by the private security group CrowdStrike,
later walked back by CrowdStrike's president
Shawn
Henry
at a secret House hearing in Dec 2017, but not revealed till this May.
With the UK, we return to the first pillar of the U.S. Russiagate story, the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which targeted many on the
U.S. list. The Magnitsky Act is recognized as the beginning of the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations. It is based on a
hoax invented by Browder and easily disproved by documentary evidence, if governments cared about that.
The European Court of Human Rights on Magnitsky's arrest
First, a few of the obvious fake charges. Three judges are accused of detaining Magnitsky, which the UK says "facilitated" his
mistreatment and denial of medical care. However, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled
in
August 2019, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion." The Court said: "The
accusations were based on documentary evidence relating to the payment of taxes by those companies and statements by several
disabled persons who had confessed to sham work for the two companies."
The decision to arrest him was made after "investigating authorities noted that during a tax inquiry which had preceded the
criminal investigation, Mr Magnitskiy had influenced witnesses, and that he had been preparing to flee abroad. In particular,
he had applied for an entry visa to the United Kingdom and had booked a flight to Kyiv." He was a flight risk.
Several of the UK targets were said to have "facilitated" mistreatment of Magnitsky because they had been involved in a fraud
he exposed. The reference is to a $230-million tax refund scam against the Russian Treasury.
Back to the ECHR: "The Court observe[d] that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings
against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent
acts." The taxes were the real story; the fraud narrative was a cover-up.
The fake fraud story
Magnitsky did not uncover a massive fraud. That was the tax refund fraud in which companies engaged in collusive lawsuits,
"lost" the suits, and "agreed" to pay damages equal to their entire year's profits. They then requested a full refund of taxes
paid on the now zero gains. The fake lawsuits and payouts were first revealed to police by Russian shell company director
Rimma Starova
April
9
and
July
10,
2008. (Russian originals
April
and
July
.)
With investigators on the trail, Browder's Hermitage Fund director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the fraud, and Browder
gave the story to The
NYTimes
and
the Russian paper
Vedomosti
,
which published it July 24, 2008, long before Magnitsky mentioned it in October 2008. His
testimony
did
not accuse any officials.
Browder's
Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his
narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it.
She says there has been a
violation of
Article
165
of the criminal code.
Browder translates that into Starova accusing his
companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his
testimony
,
Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky.
The main story at the center of the Magnitsky Acts in the U.S. and UK are not that he was mistreated or failed to get good
medical care, which is what is mostly alleged here. That would put dozens of U.S. prison officials in the crosshairs,
including recently those running state prison systems in
Alabama
and
Mississippi
.
It is that he was murdered. In the only reference to beating, the head of the Matrosskaya detention center is accused of
"ordering the handcuffing and beating" of Magnitsky before he died.
The U.S. Act, on which the British version is modeled, says that in detention Magnitsky "was beaten by 8 guards with rubber
batons on the last day of his life." But the alleged assailants' names are not on the list. A key argument made by sponsors
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md) and Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass) was that the people targeted – tax investigators, court officials,
hospital workers -- played a role in this claimed murder of Magnitsky. (Cardin and McGovern haven't responded to my requests
to comment on contradictory evidence.)
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab takes the same line, declaring, "You cannot set foot in this country, and we will seize your
blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try," as he announced the new sanctions. Blood-drenched? No evidence supplied for the
sanctioned Russians.
For Browder, the purpose of the Magnitsky Acts he promotes in the West is as a political tool to build a wall against Russia's
attempt to have him answer for documented financial frauds totaling at least $100 million, and with new evidence as much as
$400 million.
The death hoax: Forensic photos tell the truth
Here is the story of Magnitsky death hoax, with links to evidence, including how Browder forged and falsified documents.
Browder had the Russian forensic reports and photos that were made after Magnitsky's death but suppressed what did not support
his arguments. The photos in this forensic
report
show
that Magnitsky, allegedly beaten to death, didn't have a life-threatening mark on his body.
Magnitsky's
body on a cot in the hospital ward.
Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L.
Magnitsky.
Script:
The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door.
Magnitsky
face shoulders on hospital-bed
.
Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky.
Browder doctored part of another forensic
report
provided
in translation to the Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, Mass., for its
analysis
of
Magnitsky's death. It notes as "illegible" words that show there were no beating marks on Magnitsky's body and that there was
no scalp damage. The deleted parts of the true translation are underlined.
"The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck, trunk, upper and lower
extremities,
with pressure on them
with a finger disappear and restore their original color after 8 minutes. Damage
not found on the scalp."
The doctored line reads, "The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck,
trunk, upper and lower extremities, (illegible) not found on the scalp."
Here in the report that Browder gave PHR:
Browder
doctored report claims a section illegible, third line.
The paragraph in the Russian
document
shows
nothing is illegible.
Russian
document shows nothing is illegible.
The Russian words omitted in the doctored English document are "при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено."
The full Russian text can be translated online: Трупные пятна обильные, синюшно-фиолетовые, разлитые, располагающиеся на
задней поверхности шеи, туловища, верхних и нижних конечностей, при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено. Кости лицевого скелета, хрящи
носа на ощупь целы. Глаза закрыты.
What the American pathologist who analyzed Browder's documents said
Dr.
Robert Bux
Dr. Robert C. Bux, then coroner/chief medical examiner for the El Paso County Coroner's Office in Colorado Springs, was the
forensic expert on the team that wrote the PHR
report
.
Bux told me, "I do not think that these spots are contusions. Contusions will not go away and can be demonstrated by incising
or cutting into the tissues under the skin. These are reportedly all on the posterior aspect of the neck, body and limbs and
may represent postmortem
lividity
when
the body was viewed by the prosecutor of the autopsy."
Dr. Bux said, "If this is lividity (red purple coloration of the skin) it is not yet fixed and will blanch to a pale skin
color and red purple coloration will disappear. If the body is then placed face up i.e. supine then after a few minutes then
it will appear again. This is simply due to blood settling in the small blood vessels and a function of gravity."
It's not what a layman reading Browder's forged "illegible" might think.
Dr. Bux added, "Having said all of this, I have never seen any
autopsy photographs demonstrating this, and while photographs should have been taken to document all skin abnormalities as
well as all surfaces of the body to document the presence or absence of trauma, I do not know if photographs were taken and
withheld or never taken
."
PHR said, "A full and independent review of the cause of death of S.L. Magnitsky is not possible given the documentation
presented and available to PHR." The document list is at its report pages
2-3
.
The PHR autopsy protocol claims that there are "photo tables on 2 sheets" and "schematic representation of injuries on 1
sheet. However, if they exist, they were not available for the present review."
They do exist, but Browder did not
give them to PHR.
Browder posted and widely distributed this composite of
photos
of
bruises on Magnitsky's hand and knee taken November 17
th
,
2009, the day after the accountant's death.
Forensic
photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee
He got them from Russian forensic
Report
2052.
Katie
Fisher
,
doing public relations for Hermitage,
posted
them,
but not the text, to Google Cloud.
The report cited "circular abrasions in the wrist area," a "bluish-violet bruise" and "multiple strip-like horizontally
located abrasions."
It said, "A bruise located on the inner surface of the right lower limb in the projection of the ankle joint appeared 3-6 days
before the time death."
It concluded, "[T]hese injuries in living persons do not entail a temporary disability or a significant permanent loss of
general disability and are not regarded as harm to health, they are not in a cause and effect relationship with death."
The forensic reports attribute bruises to Magnitsky wearing handcuffs and kicking and hitting against cell doors. Magnitsky's
lawyer Dmitri Kharitonov
told
filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov, "I think he was simply banging on the door with all his force trying to make them let him out and none paid
attention."
No other injuries found
The same
report
includes
schematic drawings of Magnitsky's body on which to note other relevant marks or injuries.
The report said,
"There were no marks or injuries noted on his head
or torso No other injuries were found on the corpse
" Browder didn't send PHR these drawings or make them public.
Forensic
schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries.
Asked if there was evidence that Magnitsky was "beaten to death by
riot guards," Dr. Bux told me, "I have no evidence to suggest that this occurred."
For the record,
PHR
said
Magnitsky's
death was from untreated serious illness. Even without the body photos, its experts didn't claim a beating. Forensic analysts
never have.
Manipulating the death certificate
To promote his fabrication, Browder posted a deceptive PowerPoint of the death certificate that indicated a
"
closed
craniocerebral injury
?"
circled in red, with the other text too small to
read.
Magnitsky
death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected
"Closed" meant "past." Several forensic documents include an interview with Magnitsky's mother Natalya Magnitskaya. She
told
investigators,
"In 1993 – I can't say a more accurate date, S.L Magnitsky had a craniocerebral injury. He slipped on the street and as a
result hit his head, after which he had headaches for some time."
Investigators obtained full medical records including this on page 29 of
Report
555-10
in English, which Browder gave PHR: "
On February 4, 1993, at about
08:40 a.m.., in his house entrance he slipped and fell down hitting his head, lost consciousness for a short time, vomited,
attended for emergency help by an ambulance which took him to the City Clinic Hospital (GKB).
Was examined by the
neurosurgeon in the reception ward, craniogram without pathema. Diagnosis: brain concussion, recommended treatment to be taken
on an out-patient clinic basis."
Browder's assertion that the "closed craniocerebral injury" came from a beating was a lie.
Browder's changing stories on the death of Magnitsky
Browder did not initially claim Magnitsky had been murdered. He said Magnitsky, left alone uncared for in a room, had simply
died. After a few years, pushing the Magnitsky Act, he declared Magnitsky had been tied up and beaten by rubber baton-wielding
thugs until dead.
Graphic by Michael Thau.
Browder December 2009 tells
Chatham
House
, London, "I don't know what they were thinking. I don't know whether they killed him deliberately on the night of
the 16th, or if he died of neglect."
"They put him in a straight-jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited 1 hour and 18 minutes until he died." December
2010,
San
Diego Law School
.
Then, promoting the Magnitsky Act, "They put him in an isolation cell, tied him to a bed, then allowed eight guards guards
beat him with rubber batons for 118 min until he was dead." December 2011,
University
of Cambridge
Judge Business School.
" .they put him in an isolation cell, chained him to a bed, and eight riot guards came in and beat him with rubber batons.
That night he was found dead on the cell floor." July 2017, U.S.
Senate
Judiciary Committee
.
What the Moscow Public Oversight Commission says really happened
The
Public
Oversight Commission
, an independent Russian NGO, reports Magnitsky's final day differently. November 16, 2009:
7:00pm. The patient behaves inadequately. Talks to a "voice," looks disorientated, and shouts that someone wants to kill him.
His condition is diagnosed as psychosis. The emergency doctor was called. There are no body damages apart from traces of
handcuffs on the wrists.
7:30pm. He was left unattended without medical support.
8:48pm. Emergency team arrived. When emergency doctors entered the special cell, Sergei was sitting on the cot, with his eyes
unfocused.
9:15pm. The patient was surveyed again as his condition deteriorated. He lost consciousness. The reanimation procedure was
started (indirect heart massage and ventilation of lungs using the Ambu pillow). The patient was transferred to the special
room where he received an artificial ventilation of lungs and a hormones injection.
9:50pm. The patient died."
The commission reported no evidence of beating. The Russian forensic and medical experts' conclusion was that Magnitsky had
heart disease (arteriosclerosis), diabetes, hepatitis, and pancreatitis, some illnesses predating arrest. They wrote detailed
criticism of the doctors' treatment, saying that it wasn't timely or adequate and that "the shortcomings in the provision of
the medical assistance to S.L. Magnitsky" caused his death.
But it's not the riot squad beating Browder, with no evidence, sold to the U.S. Congress, the State Department, the UK
Parliament, the Foreign Office and the media. Or that U.S. or UK authorities or media ever attempted to prove. Because like
the Tonkin Gulf "incident" and Iraq's WMD, the weaponized Russiagate stories have a foreign/military policy goal. Truth is
quite irrelevant.
"... The cash must be Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. ..."
There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United
States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia. The New York
Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to
kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious
Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by
delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks "Why
does Trump put Russia first?" before calling for a "swift and significant U.S. response." Rice,
who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about
swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the
escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening
Syria.
The Times is also titillating
with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of
cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has
been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world's
number one producer of opium and its byproducts.
The cash must be
Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely
tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous
sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin's
GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the "alleged" and consider
for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank
transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and
NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to
justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be
established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a
crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up
that sort of evidence.
Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The
Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably
inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton
observed the media was reporting a "fact" that there was a rumor.
Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got
up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly
and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is "disgusted" by a
"betrayal" of American troops due to Trump's insistence on maintaining "an embarrassing
campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin."
The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed
but are
advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the
"circumstantial details" are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including
crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly
was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.
Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances
around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine
a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in
training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly
need an incentive to kill Americans and as
only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the
year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint
Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been
attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.
The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November
election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did
nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been
verified. For once America's Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the "intelligence
community," but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused
by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a
speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence
assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump
is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are
seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success
and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them
responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee,
currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how
it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that
Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the
Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff's later role in cooking the witnesses
that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.
Schiff predictably
opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying "I find it inexplicable in light
of these very public allegations that the president hasn't come before the country and assured
the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on
American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect
American troops."
Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is
a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it
for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to
their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence
community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed "sources with access,"
which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either
completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation
and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of
bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to
high heaven because it doesn't even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy
Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times. For what it's worth, a number of
former genuine intelligence officers including
Paul Pillar, John Kiriakou , Scott Ritter , and
Ray McGovern
have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National
Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no
electronic trail to validate it.
Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the
Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban.
One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels
fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons,
training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers.
Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The
support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently
being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular
regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and
the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort
was delusional from the start.
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a "defensive" U.S. presence in
Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial
Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable
Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is
unpredictable, but America's experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very
encouraging.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic unrest
Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917 using the
same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”. Putin undid all
their hard work in Russia and kicked them out and seized their ill gotten gains: this,
coupled with their congenital hatred of Russia, is the reason for the non-stop, bipartisan
refrain of “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan,
much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex
(MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars. It is personally humiliating to retreat. The whole country is also worn down by
lost wars and the psychological blow lasts for over 10 years like during the post-Vietnam
era. Keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan permanently won’t win the war but it will
prevent a defeat and potentially humiliating last minute evacuation when the Taliban retake
Kabul.
Also Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan: “Al-Qaeda has 400 to 600 operatives
active in 12 Afghan provinces and is running training camps in the east of the country,
according to the report released Friday. U.N. experts, drawing their research from interviews
with U.N. member states, including their intelligence and security services, plus think tanks
and regional officials, say the Taliban has played a double game with the Trump
Administration, consulting with al-Qaeda senior leaders throughout its 16 months of peace
talks with U.S. officials and reassuring Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, that
the Taliban would “honour their historical ties” to the terrorist group.”
https://time.com/5844865/afghanistan-peace-deal-taliban-al-qaeda/
While the melodrama about trump=pro Russia and dems=anti Russia makes good political
theater to keep folks running in circles chasing their tails, this is not the main reason for
the continuous attacks on Russia by organs of the zpc/nwo. The main reason is Russia is not
owned by them. Not a colony. The main reason for the psywar is not about trump vs dems, it is
about keeping the Russia=bad guys theme seeded in the propaganda. That was the main reason
behind “Russiagate”, as well. And as with that scam, both “sides”
knowingly played their part hyping the theater to keep that Russia=bad guy propaganda theme
in the mind of americans.
I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about Russia. I
completely tune it out the same way I tuned out any news about “CHAZ.”
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on
American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a
“defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a
majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be
played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump.”
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true. So what? I don’t
see how it can be used as justification to double down on a pointless war. (Reasonable people
might see it as another reason to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later).
Moreover, I don’t think they’d have to create such drama to get Trump the
imperialist to keep the troops in Afghanistan (if he actually had any intention to withdraw
them in the first place).
This propaganda effort reminds me of the Skripal affair. Perhaps Trump’s handlers
and enablers realize that he’ll lose the election (if we have one) so they’re
trying to manipulate him into escalating tensions with Russia (just as they are with China,
Iran and Venezuela).
The Americans were always very proud and upfront about how they organized, trained,
equipped and financed the Taliban to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. In view of this, why
do they act so surprised should the Russians do something similar on a much smaller
scale?
Obviously, the whole story was concocted in Washington, but so what?
Anyone with half a brain should know that the Americans are in Afghanistan because the
Americans control the world trade in narcotics. Columbia is the cocaine end of the
business.
I do wish some smart chemists would synthesize heroin and cocaine in a laboratory and put
the CIA out of business.
“and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump”
The demonization of a democratically-elected President by the zionist-owned New York
Times , Washington Post and CNN is somewaht reminiscent of the demonization of a
certain Austrian in the Western media after the 1933 World Jewry’s declaration of war
on Nazi Germany.
“He who controls the narrative controls the consciousness”
With Wolf Blitz’s, Bolton’s, and this week’s release of Trump’s
relative’s book discrediting his mental health. How many books is that now???
But, times have moved on. Trump can ride this wave by learning the dark art of playing
the victim using the mantra ‘look how hard I’m trying’ and appealing to
US voters as their ‘law and order’ president.
Geopolitically speaking, if the US Zio-cons were smart, rather than suffering from
‘Groupthink’, they would be trying to entice Russia away from its partner, China,
and draw Russia into playing a greater role in Europe. Recall that Putin had asked if Russia
could join NATO.
But, alas, they’re still making the same mistake they did in 1991 after the collapse
of Central Industrialism in the former USSR.
The Mujahudeen morphing into Al Qaeda is a new one on me that I have never heard before. I
had read and heard countless times that it was Al Qaeda all along in Afghanistan that the
U.S. assisted to fight against the USSR. It does not make sense either, since the MEK (
Mujahudeen ) is a twisted Shiite cult Iranian, and Al Qaeda is Arabic and twisted Sunni cult.
So, the language and religious differences do not make any sense that one became the
other.
I guess that it makes perfect sense to say anything at all, regardless of the facts, to
the Terrible Trio in the DNC, just to keep the focus on themselves, rather than on Biden.
Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from
former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put
Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S.
response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice
President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of
the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations
directed against a non-threatening Syria.
The pathetic Rice has plenty of company. During a 7/5 CNN puff segment with Dana Bash,
Tammy Duckworth (another potential Biden VP), out of the blue said that the Russians put out
a bounty on US forces. Of course, Bash didn’t challenge Duckworth.
Downplayed in all of this is the fact that Russia was one of the first, if not the first
nation, to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian assistance to the US military
operation in Afghanistan.
“…the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t
even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff
and the New York Times.”
Pelosi is the proud daughter of a shabbos goy father; Schumer is “shomer” or
professed guardian of Israel; Schiff is the decendent of the Internationale Banker who
supported Trotsky’s take down of the Czar; the NYT is what happens when Hebrews learn
to write English. The Jews have been trying to rule Russia for almost 200 years as
Solzhenitsyn would have told us if he could have gotten a publisher in the Jewish American
publishing industry. If Stalin hadn’t thrown the Bolshevik Jews out, there might not
have been a cold war. Watch out Gentiles. These people have taken us into 3 wars for their
interests and they NEVER change.
And, of course, the “conservative” maggots are going along with the obvious
liberal lies once again. There has never been a group of more cowardly and worthless
individuals than American “conservatives”.
Russia
The hope of the world.
Edgar Cayce
Famous US psychic.
As the USA continues its path into a political, moral and military cesspit of pure
corruption, lies, violence, mass murder and sheer evil, it is increasingly difficult to argue
with Cayce.
He was certainly on to something, and that something was like, 80 years ago.
One can even put more belief and trust in a psychic these days – than anything being
claimed or reported by the USA alphabets, government or MSM
Sickening and frightening really.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars
You would have thought by now the American Generals would have got used to ‘losing
wars’.
They haven’t won one other than Grenada in living memory.
The Russians even had to win WW2 for them….
Russia and China would eat them alive today.
So we are now down to sheer bullying, bluster and illegal economic sabotage.
Venezuela springs to mind.
Yes, but they also hate Putin for liberating Russia from its rapacious oligarchs, nearly
all of whom were Jews. The present artificially created hatred for Russia in the US is in
reality the hatred of the frustrated Jewish Mafia.
“I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about
Russia”
Lenny is clapping his hands excitedly.
“Oy believe it, George ! I do – I do – I do !”
George grunts, clears his throat & spits with some force & accuracy at a scrunched up
copy of the NYT.
“Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true.”
For amusement’s sake, lets wonder what would happen should the Russians offer a bounty
to US & allied troops to kill each other . A kind of cash incentive to bring back
the final years of the Vietnam war.
It sure will be entertaining to watch Joe Biden try to cope with the duties of the
presidency. He makes the fictional President Camacho from the movie “Idiocracy”
look like a statesman with the intellectual skills of a Teddy Roosevelt by comparison. I can
picture his inaugural address in my head, as he inevitably loses his place on the
teleprompter and starts babbling about pony soldiers and you know, the thing. After a grope
fest at his inaugural ball, instead of the Oval Office he will immediately be consigned to
the White House basement for the duration of his term. If you thought an inarticulate
President Donnie made for good reality TV, just wait till a totally incoherent President Joe
has the whole world rollicking with laughter. Plus, Republicans get their turn to amuse with
grid lock of the Congress and the discharge of mass quantities of bog sediment at the
administration every single day for four solid years. It’s a win for comedy no matter
which candidate is elected!
Ann, you’ve got the quote wrong. Here is what he actually wrote:
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian
bounties”
I’m going to assume you didn’t mean “forks” but actually
“faux”.
Using “faux” is here is not incorrect. Giraldi could have meant the NYT article
was “not real, but made to look or seem real” — which goes considerably
further than “false”.
However, that does not necessarily mean that other users of “faux” are not
indulging themselves in a “silly fashion”.
@Emily
to consecrate Russia to the heart of Mother Mary – which still hasn’t fully been
fulfilled, btw – is another indication of Russia’s leadership in a community of a
shared future for humanity, aka Community of Common Destiny (CCD), as advocated by the
Russian President’s ‘double-helix’ partner, China’s President Xi
Jinping.
Compare and contrast that with, then President, Obama’s words to Putin: “The
United States has exclusive rights to anywhere in the world.”
@Alfred
family bankruptcy when every pharmacist knows they re-branded and off-shored their loot
several years ago. Their fine was pocket lint to them.
But that fake allowed the corporate-government axis to make ALL serious painkillers
effectively illegal, including the ones being used safely before Purdue Pharma came
along.
Narcotics are safe when used properly, but where’s the CIA’s take there? So
they killed their competitors and made your family doctor an agent. And sell lots of dope.
Because the nation the CIA protects is in terminal debt, agencies need hard cash from
somewhere .
That’s why the democrats and the left fight to keep the southern border open ,the
hordes of third world peasants are just a “bonus”……look at who the
drugs are destroying i.e. the target
The Democrats have predictably been outdone by the anti-Trump Republicans in this matter.
You can’t sink any lower in Russia-baiting than the Lincoln project’s recent
release, “Fellow Traveler”. Beyond stupid and revolting. Gives you a clue of
their very low opinion of the American voter
There is a dangerous illusion – characterized in part by demonizing rivals –
and that is the developing crisis is merely a re-run of the Cold War. After the Napoleonic
wars the Congress system was established to maintain peace in Europe. It worked reasonably
well, interrupted significantly by the Crimean war, but finally buried with the outbreak of
WWI in 1914; it did not prevent that cataclysmic conflict. Then came the League of Nations
for a short time; it did not stop WWII. The United Nations and other post-war institutions
were established in the 1940s. Now we are in the approaches to WWIII. But very few see. The
apocalyptic conflict feared during the Cold War is nearing. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Russia Hoax 2 is supposed to keep our minds off the Uniparty’s anarcho-tyranny, but
it’s awfully hard to fear Putin with orcs and shitlibs running amok wrecking statues of
racist elks.
@Robert
Dolan olostomy Bag, or were able to steal it on election night, Trump would be spending
the rest of his life in prison right now.
And Russia would have acquiesced to, though more likely quietly assisted, the frame-up.
What we don’t know at this point is what generational geopolitical payoff Russia was
promised by Brennan in March 2016, for its participation. My suspicion is that Nord Stream II
was merely a down payment.
I don’t envy Barr or Durham. How do they resolve this greatest political scandal in
American history when at the center of it you have a former CIA Director who is a Russian
mole.
If you review the New York Times editorial page and its oped pieces you will see more half
of the content each day is anti Trump. The Times has also played up the civil rights aspect
of the BLM movement while playing down the hooliganism of Antifa and the looting by Blacks
which has accompanied it. Many neighborhoods in Manhattan were trashed and looted far beyond
what The Times reported. So promoting the “Russian Bounty” lie doesn’t
surprise me at all. Remember also Times employees went absolutely crazy when the paper
printed an oped by Sen. Tom Cotton. What a bunch of lying flakes and chicken shits.
@tyrone
of more and more of the total of products and services produced in the US economy every year
(GDP) goes to capital, i.e., the holders of wealth, rather than workers, which in turn
creates a drag on further GDP – so eventually it becomes self defeating.
Think: Vicious Cycle of Poverty, as opposed to Virtuous Cycle of Prosperity.
But that explains why neither the Dems / Repubs are determined to do anything about the
1,000,000+ illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexican border every year.
As said many times by many others: ‘The US has one political party – the
business party, with 2 wings.’
The Soviets actually had to stop the Wehrmacht cold (very cold, indeed) and be ready to
start rolling it back before the USA even dared to join the war.
US Ziocons movement is a family affair. They’re into the second and third
generation, who are still following their daddy’s’ or grandpa’s playbook.
Original ideas are hard to come by with this lot.
The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be
president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt
78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
Good one but what do you mean may be suffering ? (Grin)
Not only replace Trump with Biden but with all the radicals now infesting theDemo’krat
party and manipulating demented, sleepy Joe.
These are all made up stories. By the time one fake story is laboriously dismantled
another one is made up. It’s always a game of playing catch-up. Russia makes a good
boogyman and has served well in that role for three generations now so it’s a tested
formula. It’s a dangerous game since all these idiots could sleepwalk us into an armed
clash with Russia somewhere. Then of course there’ll plenty of problems but perhaps
there’s a calculation that something like that could benefit this band of war
inciters.
I know old liberals have ate up all things Russia, Russia, Russia. Have the POBs (people
of brown)? Have all those post ’67 immigrants? They all vote democrats, and are now the
future demographic of America. Its their kids that have to wanna die for the war machine now.
Has the Yiddish propaganda sheet worked its magic on them? The 1619 Project sure did. My
humble guess is no, despite their voting. Most just want money.
Folks, it is time to get your love ones to stop enlisting and re-enlisting in the US
military. It is the only boycott we can do that will actually hurt.
For what it’s worth, Pillar got shitcanned and rusticated by Cofer Black, Kiriakou
got locked up, Ritter got framed as a pedo, and McGovern got the shit beat out of him by my
DoS goons. So shut the fuck up a little, OK?
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish?
To sound like a broken record again , the CABAL hates Russia and specifically Putin
because he re-established Christian Orthodoxy as the de facto state religion of Mother
Russia. They would get The USA into a hot war with Russia if it meant hurting Putin, never
mind what it would do to us. Their hatred is so strong that they could care less what it
would do to America, the snakes that they are.
All Russians would have to do to exploit the current unrest in America would be to knock
out a social media platform or two, or perhaps to leak dirt on the people ginning up war.
Those targets are absolutely hated by the American people outside the Imperial City.
@Zarathustra
and historically illiterate pseudo-intellectual BS about 1619 and Evil America that, because
its evil, should change the names of the military bases where those soldiers trained under
the impression they were going to defend their country!
The Hostile Elite is a rabid dog so totally out of control it needs to be put down
immediately.
Whatever happens, no one should ever take the moral condemnation of psychopaths
seriously.
Battered Wife Syndrome?
I give you Battered Nation Syndrome.
Time to prove to the world it’s possible to recover from it and move into a larger
freedom.
@No
Friend Of The Devil not called al-
Qaeda at this stage but some other name. Apparently the name al-Qaeda was first used by the
FBI to reference this group due to some sort of misunderstanding, but it eventually became
the name they adopted for themselves since that was what everybody was calling them anyway
when they became famous after further adventures.
The above should be taken with a grain of salt since this is only what I have been able to
glean from reading various articles. Presumably what is called al-Qaeda today are the
descendants or associates of personnel from this particular group as opposed to other groups,
but I don’t know.
When Russia was controlled by Marxists, Leftists and Liberals loved Russia, defended
Russia, excused Russia, promoted Russia. Now that Russia has survived Marxist totalitarianism
and begun rediscovering Russian cultural heritage, which features Christianity, Leftists and
Liberals HATE Russia.
Who coulda thunk it possible?
More important is that our Neocons and our old guard Yank ‘conservatives’
– who control foreign policy for both Republicans and Democrats – in the military
and the spy game see Russia today exactly as the Leftists and Liberals see Russia.
Both the Neocons and the Yank WASP Country Club types in the so-called
‘conservative’ arena agree with Leftists and Liberals about Russia.
There’s plenty of meaning there for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
The Dem’s election strategists are grasping at straws again.
The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who serve
in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by wild
tales and false flags.
The “bounty on American soldiers” is hogwash to gin up what they perceive to
be a voting bloc of gullible whites.
The Dems weakness with working class whites is one they will try to shore up by crassly
fake, flag-waving appeals to bedrock patriotism.
@anonymous
equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men
are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to
this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty
– to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base
alloy of hypocrisy.”
With Russia abolishing serfdom and slavery at the time – and much later than Western
Europe – something had to be done to not be outdone by the Russians, of course. The
hypocrisy would indeed have been unbearable. It still is.
@Really
No Shit the mass of whites before the post-WW2 era, then you are ignorant. If you think
the current Deep State is entirely Jewish, or even majority Jewish, you are ignorant.
Without any doubt, Jews now, and for decades, have per capita dominated the American Deep
State. But they did not create it, nor did they create its evil. The Mossad did NOT
create MI6 and the CIA. British Secret Service created the CIA and the Mossad.
America has a Deep State that flowed naturally from the British Deep State. The Brit
Empire was the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 1. America is the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 2.
US strategy at the end of WWII included letting Germans and Soviets wear each other down
and kill as many of each other as possible, without US forces involvement. Obviously
“we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the Soviets too much
stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20 years.
Just more Liberal/Dim/Zio/CCP sponsored horsesh*t, to drive US and Russia apart, to drive
Russia toward China, when US would be better off trying to treat Russia neutrally (hang our
CCP paid dems).
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic
unrest Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917
using the same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”.
Spot on!
But, a more accurate name than The Deep State is Judeocracy Inc.
followed by Russian assistance to the US military operation in Afghanistan.
Few people seem to understand the logistics of the war in Afghanistan. The US and their
allies were hugely dependent on the Russian railway system. It is just so ridiculous to
listen to these monkeys who pretend to be statesmen and women.
Susan Rice clearly uses skin whitener and hair straightener to look as much as possible
like those she hates so much.
Unfortunately, the matter with Russia is settled. And while I did not think there was
evidence to support the matter. The current executive sign an intel report that accused the
Russians and Pres. Putin specifically with sabotaging US election and murder and attempted
murder. Unless our executive can reconcile that matter by extracting some manner of penance
for hat behavior — reconciling with Russia is just a flat water tide.
Their actions constituted acts of war and while I may disagree with the assessment
—
that is the US disposition on which nothing Russia says can be taken further than a
pipe.
That intel report which this executive signed locks our posture in place regarding Russia.
We kill people in this country for being suspects.
I don’t think the US citizen would look to kindly on shaking hands with a saboteur
and murderer.
Whether the signing was a matter of political expediency is irrelevant,. The executive
openly cited Russia as an enemy of the US. For me it was one of the most painful memories of
the executives tenure, because
1. destroyed a large portion of our foreign policy agenda of toning down our presence
anywhere
2. demonstrated the executive was not as string as I believed he needed to be.
If they were willing to interfere in our election and engage in political murder in allied
states —there’s no reason to doubt that they would support the murder of our
troops in a conflict one.
———————-
It was a devastating moment when the executive agreed to that intel report.
@mike99588
r Germany.
And vastly profiting from both sides – shamelessly.
Britain and the Commonwealth faced Germany alone through dark days indeed until Russia became
our ally – before the USA incidently – conveniently overlooked..
The Americans finally came in Dec 1941 after Russia was already standing with us.
It has not been forgotten in Britain to this day.
The USA bled this country for decades, paying for what was so much crap amongst all
else..
Lend lease – what a scam that was!!!!!
Whilst you traded and supported the nazi war machine against us.
When you work that into the British Empire acting to prevent Russia from forcing the Turks
out of Europe and thereby liberating Constantinople, and acting to harm Russia deeply in
order to win ‘The Great Game,’ you perhaps will then see that back to Oliver
Cromwell and the Puritans that WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Well, unlike the JewSA, Russia isn’t enthralled with the Jews. Putin and company
kicked out Soros and his Open Society as well as the Rothschild bankers. Lastly the four
billionaire Jew oligarchs who were running the Yeltsin economic shitshow were also shown the
door. Perhaps the “Assad must go” flop played into Jewish ire as well.
Amusing to see Democrats so deeply concerned over the “Russian threat”. I was
in the Agency during the Cold War. When the Soviets REALLY were a threat, most of those same
Democrats urged retreat, compromise, submission. It makes my guts churn to see these
“patriots” making hysterical claims against Russia. It is almost as if they
resent the fact that Putin has rejected their entire Globalist plan, re-Christianized Russia,
and locked up at least a few of the so-called “oligarchs” who were looting the
Russian people of their patrimony. The case of Bill Browder deserves some attention. This Red
Diaper baby (his grandfather was Earl Browder, chief of the CPUSA) has been one of the
cheerleaders in the campaign to demonize Russia. Following the family tradition of a lack of
loyalty (he holds British and U.S. passports, just in case!) this weasel used his
granddad’s old Soviet contacts to make hundreds of millions carting off anything of any
value left in the old Soviet Union. Of course, he worked with an equally greasy gang of
former Soviets to do this, including one Sergei Magnitsky, a “tax advisor”
working with Browder who assumed room temperature in a Russian jail after he was nabbed by
the tax police. I really wonder if some of these Democrats and others who so denounce Putin
had visions of sugar plums and hundreds of millions of dollars dancing in their heads, dreams
rudely brought to earth by Putin?
Oct 20, 2009 Taliban Is Getting American Troops Hooked On Heroin
It diminishes the effectiveness of our troops as well as raises money for the Taliban, who
are the ones growing the poppy. How can the US combat this new strategy?
LONDON— Recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that
officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000
pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials.
@EliteCommInc.
e accused is served by having his lawyers present. Since the defendants have refused to
appear in person – three of them disputing the Dutch jurisdiction — the defence
lawyers should withdraw.”
@Emily
t was only done to get into a position to share the spoils. Britain was no more than a vassal
state of the US after WW I, and in no position to defeat Germany. Only Russia could, and they
did, and would have done so with or without the Anglo-Americans. Stop whining about suffering
you brought onto yourself. Besides, Britain suffered very little compared to the continent,
including Germany, and European Jewry, and all of them would have suffered less without the
British arrogance that they had to defend their national honour. Hope they stay out of
European affairs now but it doesn’t look good at this fake Brexit moment
Wisely, Agent76 said, “The CIA Drug Connection is as Old as the Agency.”
Re; above, I suggest Grandfathered by Operation Gladio and it’s Vatican Bank money
laundering component???
Am aware how an England bank, USBC, was caught laundering the Afghanistan drug trade
billions and got a “slap on wrist.”
Linked below is an obscure article on President Putin’s special (on scene)
Afghanistan envoy, Zamir Kabulov, who accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of drug
trafficking.
@No
Friend Of The Devil to attack Iran. They are totally despised by ordinary Iranians. They
are a cult with something in common with the Cambodian Pol Pot way of life. Very dangerous
people. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Taliban who are trying to liberate
their country from the Americans.
@Gidoutahere
ld bring to an end a fledgling democracy and a return to the Cold War days.
“In return, Maxwell’s massive debts would be wiped out by a grateful
Kryuchkov, [Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB] who planned to replace Gorbachev. The KGB
chief wanted Maxwell to use the Lady Ghislaine, named after Maxwell’s daughter, as a
meeting place between the Russian plotters, Mossad chiefs and Israel’s top politicians.
? Apparently the Rothschilds/Israel Deep State wanted Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
Events are so tangled and interconnected, as Ghislaine is still a Israel Deep State
operative.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians hating themselves or other Whites for being proud
of their heritage.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians tearing down monuments and statues or desecrating
their flag.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians wanting their country to be invaded by hordes of
hostile nonwhite WMD.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians apologizing or backing down from identifying
themselves as a Christian nation.
Oh, I get it. This is why the so-called, “Deep State” and “Neo-Cons aka
Neo-Commies” hate Russia so much. I get it now. It burns (((their))) collective asses
that there are actually some largely homogeneous and traditional White nations still around
who aren’t willingly accepting their own genocide or apologizing for being evil White
racists. My gawd, this is my epiphany, this is MY AWAKENING ( shout out to Dr. Duke’s
EXCELLENT BOOK), now I know why Russia is so vilified by (((our media.))) (((Our media))) is
racist against Whites, and (((they))) hate the idea that a traditional White Christian nation
still exists, especially a powerful nation like Russia. Oh dear, how could I be so gullible
not to see this one. I’m Irish American and I am told I must hate the Russkies to be
patriotic by other patriotic Israel Firsters.
It has to do with two things, and only those two things, all other rubbish about
“human rights”, “international law”, blah blah blah, is propaganda
meant for the common man.
1) Russia is white, that means it can easily be demonized and is demonized.
2) The jews that fled Russia are an especially virulent strain of the jew, their hatred for
Russia has few equal.
Maybe someone has already stated the obvious. Regardless of the validity (or lack of) a
bounty program; it’d be real hard to affect US troops if there were no US troops in
Afghanistan.
@Erzberger
ica and the Balkans.
Fourth, had the Admiral Canaris led traitors not been hiding munitions or sending them to the
wrong place, the Soviets may not have recovered even with the US re-supply.
If there is something to yawn about, it is the WWII narrative is tiresome. Stalin
wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or Roosevelt. The reality
is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. The Italians were of no help, and
the Japanese were as much a drain as a resource to Germany. Germany was destroyed to allow
the advancement of Marxism, which had already embedded itself in the UK and US.
The zionists are pissed that Russia has saved Syria from the zionist mercenaries aka AL
CIADA aka ISIS, which are creations the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATO and so the anti
Russian propaganda, pouring out of the zionist owned MSM.
Obviously “we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the
Soviets too much stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20
years
The Russians paid for all the “giving” with gold. Kindly stop repeating lies.
Even the British went almost bankrupt repaying the Americans for their
“generosity”.
It will be interesting to see how the Russians will treat the Americans when the USA
experiences feudalism. I suspect the Russians will be far more generous than the Americans
deserve.
@neutral
kids.
Hilary Clinton has been a very effective butcher of Libyan and Syrian population at large;
young children and pregnant women were the greatest victims of Clinton’s subhuman
policies.
Susan Rice was good at promoting mass slaughter in Syria, and, along with H. Clinton, S. Rice
should be credited with the slave markets in Libya.
Nuland-Kagan helped to make Ukraine into the poorest country in Europe, where zionists and
neo-nazis found a complete mutual understanding. So much for holobiz squealing.
What’s wrong with the US? How come that the US society produced these
monstrosities?
Being that America kills other countries’ soldiers (and civilians) all the time, why
can’t Russia (or any other country) do the same thing? What goes around comes around,
right?
Some things (Russiagate) are just too silly to bother with.
I agree – except that I’m getting quite a chuckle these days at the sheer,
utter desperation of the “Russia did it”, “Saddam did it”, “Bin
Laden did it”, “Assad did it”, etc. etc. etc. noise from the crowd who DID
do it.
Shlomo is cornered and exposed – and that IS worth the subscription fee to watch,
FINALLY.
“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states.” General
(((Wesley Clark)))
Obviously a patriotic “American” General like Mr. Clark has no problem with
the racist state of Israel.
Just another COHENcidence? Nah, after finding about “6 million” COHENcidences
you start thinking for yourself, stop dropping the idea that “conspiracy
theories” are “conspiracies” and start realizing you have been fed a load
of horseshit for a century and counting. We don’t have a Russia problem but Houston, we
do have a problem. Wonder what that problem is?
@Tom
Welsh te Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard, at a time when that meant something. He also wrote
(presumably without the assistance a ghost writer) some 40-odd books, as Tucker Carlson
pointed out in a recent monologue.
I think by any standard, these achievements indicate a fairly high level of intellectual
skills.
Whether or not he was a nutcase is another matter, and not mutually exclusive of his
having considerable intellectual skills. A good place to start on this question is to read
what H.L. Mencken wrote about him.
And it is said that Roosevelt is included in the Mt. Rushmore tableau because he was
friends with Borglum the sculptor.
@Trinity
of different nations. But they live in harmony. Their common language is Russian. When Putin
goes to visit the Dagestan, he tells them that their men are brave and their women beautiful.
They love it. And they love Putin for it. Sadly, Google and Youtube seem to have cleaned up
this stuff.
The current news that the Brutish govt has approved new arms sales to Saudia because Saudi
mass killings of Yemeni civilians are all “isolated incidents” so it’s
quite proper to sell them the means seems to prove your point.
“Your decision, Mr President, to grant the Soviet Union an interest-free loan to the
value of $1,000,000,000 to meet deliveries of munitions and raw materials to the Soviet Union
is accepted by the Soviet Government with heartfelt gratitude as vital aid to the Soviet
Union in its tremendous and onerous struggle against our common enemy — bloody
Hitlerism.” (here)
The US is in central Asia for much more than that, it’s about blocking China and
Russia, as well as partially cutting off Iran on it’s eastern flank. Iran is almost
surrounded by US bases. The US wants to have more control point/choke point control over
continental transport routes in Asia. (One such prize would be the Dzungarian Gate, but
that’s a little too ambitious for the moment. ) Afghanistan does have resources, but it
would be a target without them, as it is so valuable as a (potential) transit corridor.
@Emily
ulture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism" rel="nofollow"
href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism">Marshall’s
doing all in his power to ensure the victory of Mao over Nationalist forces in 1949
U.S. civilian leaders seem to swoon over enemy sanctuaries for some strange reason. Kill
U.S. troops in theater. No problemo but pinky swear we won’t go after you if you go
back across the border.
God bless Richard Nixon and his destruction of NVA base areas in Cambodia. Thereafter,
enemy activity ceased around my camp and all through MR IV.
Reading your comment, Wally, I find your name extremely apt.
None so blind as those who refuse to even read.
You can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink.
You can put all the proof necessary but if you refuse to check it out – well –
stay a ‘ Wally’.
I guess you subscribe to the philosophy of ‘Ignorance is bliss’.
@Curmudgeon
Wehrmacht, the Warsaw Rising they so strongly encouraged would not have happened, and not
have led to the disaster it was for the city and its inhabitants
“Stalin wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or
Roosevelt. “ no objections
“The reality is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. “ Much
of Europe fought on the side of Germany because they realized that Stalin, Churchill and
Roosevelt weren’t good guys, and they had nothing to look forward to but a horrible
peace in case of their victory. Why do you think the EC got together so quickly after the
war?
Also: the sheer idiocy of claiming that poor little “Britain and the
Commonwealth” stood alone against the German monster state! Do you ever look at a map?
at human and natural resources? This should have been a turkey shoot if your side had not
been as lacking in courage as it was, and as incompetent. And if the rest of Europe
wasn’t to a very large extent in the German camp, as it is today
Scott Ritter has a separate article at consortiumnews noting that the Russians have been
giving money to the Taliban (AID) to fight Americans, the CIA and their ISIS proxies since
2014. Surely Obama and/or Biden would have stopped these Russian “bounties” if
they were important.
“Please at least proofread your gibberish. Some of it might even make
sense.”
The executive in the WH has agreed that Russia sabotaged the US election process and
engaged murder and attempted in states of our allies.
There is no turning the clock bank unless Russia makes some gesture of amelioration
— there behavior constitutes an attack on the US. As such they are active enemies of
the US.
Unfortunately anyone seeking some manner of Russian love fest — should probably
forget it. Whether the executive signed for politically expedient reasons simply
doesn’t matter.
“If you believe any of the Skripals nonsense and the MH-17 false flag, you are
either gullible or a troll.”
Uhhhh, wholly irrelevant. My position in opposition to the contend that Russia sabotaged
the US election was vehemently dubious. My comments at the time make my position abundantly
clear. The evidence for the case against Russia in the US simply no there. But at the end of
the day, the executive choose to go the other direction. That is unfortunate. But it was also
a sign of things to come concerning the executives ability to stand.
And my comments today make that very clear. Your knee-jerk response that I believe what
the executive signed onto is incorrect. I knew that his choice destroyed a good deal of his
foreign poliy admonition to reduce tensions.
But that was his choice mistake or not he made that choice and as I expressed at the time
— we would have to live by it.
——————————————–
In fact, if I were on the opposition, I would like nothing better for the executive to
start behaving as though the intel report doesn’t exist. Because I would pull out that
report with his signature and commence calling him a weakling, indecisive, and a danger to
the US — who is to toothless to hold Russia accountable for her acts of terror in the
US and Europe.
I would then commence a campaign explaining why the executive wants to decrease troops ion
Europe — he wants to cede our allies over to Russian domination —
But then I am not on the opposition. It was a mistake on the facts for the executive to
sign that report for which there was little to no evidence supporting it.
Now if you have a response that gives the president some manner of face saving as he makes
nice with a country that overthrew a US election in the US, and engaged in murder and
attempted murder — have at it.
—————
Minus some kind of amelioration by the Russians or an about face by the current executive
(and tat would really be interesting) no peace and love and understanding can move forward. I
can say with certainty
Russia, Pres. Putin has no intention of apologizing for something they most likely did not
do regarding US elections.
Though I am sure he will once again have reason to chuckle.
Those of you angry, frustrated, irritated . . . and yada I suggest you take that up with
the WH They made that choice.
But by all means name call as opposed to deal with the obvious reality.
The US can not make nice with Russia until Russia makes amends for sabotaging the US
election and engage in acts of murder or attempted in murder in the sovereign states of our
allies. So says the executive in the WH. In fact he says that Pres. Putin ordered the
sabotage and murder.
I think you understand.
There is no way for the current executive to move forward with better relations with
Russia without extracting some admission and compensation for sad acts without reaping
serious political damage — I would say a loss of credibility, but that is already in
question – sadly.
Interestingly, whoever invented this lie about Russia and Taliban not only did not know
the realities of Afghanistan, but was stupid enough not to consult someone who knows. There
is no such thing as a bank transfer in Afghanistan. It exists in the Middle Ages (democracy,
my foot!), so the only form of money that functions there is cash, in hand, in a case, or in
a bag, depending on the amount.
The USA is quickly going to find itself in a corner. There is no realistic path away from
a total confrontation with Russia. No politician will dare dissent. I hope Russia is prepared
for this.
“The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who
serve in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by
wild tales and false flags.”
Well let’s face it, they usually are. These are the milch cows the MIC relies on to
keep its funding secure.
Everyone knows that Americans are the most dumbfuck stupid people on the planet. It is
more shocking to think that propaganda would NOT affect most of the population.
Anecdotally, when my family lived in England in a village near London in 1957-58 we were
treated like royalty. I’ve always assumed it’s because we were the beloved Yanks
who saved Britain’s behind in the war. That doesn’t undercut what you say about
the underlying resentment, but my clear impression and that of my parents was that the
post-war Brits loved them some Yanks.
Another anecdote, this one not so feel-good. In 1956 we lived on Lakenheath AFB in the UK.
During the Suez crisis the base was on full stand-by alert in case we had to go to war with
Britain. Seriously.
@Patagonia
Man re in Washington is beyond repair. The despicable sinister schemes, backstabbing,
lies, fake facts in a quest for power has nothing to do with democracy but criminality.
It is time to galvanize support for direct voting…enabled by evolving technology.
That process would eliminate:
@ need for electing deceiving proxies that always betray their promises to represent the
public interest.
@ Washington proxies making decisions…should be reduced to debating issues.
@ the special interest groups, lobbies self-serving agenda.
@ sending our young people dying on far away places in unnecessary wars.
When was Paul Craig Roberts last an insider? Do you think him capable of picking cover
stories generically, that is without relevant particular knowledge of inside stuff?
And you seem to claim to have that ability to pick a cover story. So…. how? What
are the generic indicia?
Oh gee, your point would make one think that no other pagan Christian Church has
produced such mass murderers, or in fact, even greater ones… which would be ludicrous as
per history, yeah?
The real source of such satanic evil should be traced to Whitevil (including their Judevil
cousins of course) supremacy and their in-house “niggas,” such as the witch you
mention.
Looks like a lot of the blonds here except the ones here date thugs and run around til
they’re 24ish from dude to dude til they discover the joys of pills & meth and take
the full bath into the toilet….
@Ann
Nonny Mouse political dancing around and inventing another culprit as criminals always do,
successfully disappeared them. Don’t hope they will ever appear again.
And this is the Brutish government that killed another Russian by polonium poisoning and of
course invented another culprit, again as criminals always do.
And is now selling weapons for mass killing to Saudia says mass killings are merely
incidentals.
Consistently, modern Britain makes Nazi Germany look angelic. Consistently.
These are not Christian moral values. What religion or ritual system or control system acts
like this once it takes charge?
@Wizard
of Oz The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter,
the technique known as “sock puppetry.” See under Mr. Derbyshire’s February
15, 2019, article comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting
as “Anon[436].”
Over time, Wizard has emerged as sympathetic to the international bureaucracy of the
Establishment of which he may even be a (former?) part, the type of “diplomat”
exemplified by Mrs. Nuland’s Ivy League cookie caddy in Ukraine. He broke character a
while back, showing emotional hostility to China. But who can be sure? Among this
website’s oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.
You will find that Roosevelt privately was giving both the UK & France assurances that
if either were attacked, the US would come to their aid well before 1938 – even
tho’ US multinational corporations were still trading with the NSDAP in Germany well into
1941.
As you can’t even get the Julian Assange bit right I don’t suppose it’s
any use asking you to justify your bald assertions or even flesh them our with detail. Let
alone explain when Britain became “modern” and ceased to be the country which is
rightly credited with ending theslave trade and led the way in abolition of slavery.
Yes, several governments have treated Assange contemptibly but he is remanded without bail
pending the resumption of the extradition hearing, not imprisoned for life in cruel or any
conditions. How can you waste readers time with such garbage?
How much credit do you give to someone who sloppily uses the term “terrorist in that
context referring to the equovalent of precision bombing in contrast to area bombing without
precise aiming?
I am really not qualified to comment on the internal wrangling of the various factions in
the USA. I look at their foreign policy actions, not proclamations, with much greater
interest.
@Erzberger
ut down war industry was started by Germany, arguably in Belgium in August 1814 but certainly
in December 1914 when German cruisers indiscriminately shelled three North East England towns.
An aberration? No. It was followed by Zepellin raids on London and the use of Big Bertha
against Paris. Then, what message and implicit set of rules do you find in the destruction of
Guernica? And many civilians were killed in the bombing of Warsaw. Even the virtually symbolic
bombing of Berlin was a response to bombs dropped on London, the only point in your favour
there being the fact that those bombs were probably not meant to be dropped on London.
How intriguing. Not having your obsessive interest in warning about Wizard of Oz I have
failed, at my level of diligence, to find any evidence at all of emotional hostility to China
or indeed, about anything much except perhaps the hypocritical mistreatment of individuals like
Julian Assange by governments. Can you help?
The Germans couldn’t believe how inept the average French, American, and British
soldier really were, even British described how frightened many of the America soldiers, most
barely old enough to shave, appeared. The German was appalled at the physical fitness of the
British soldier as well, describing them as weak and frail for the most part. Here is the
truth, Western Europe and America fought the German B team at best, often these Germans were
little more than schoolboys in some cases. Everyone knows that the bulk of the serious fighting
was done on the Eastern Front. Think if tiny Germany hadn’t had to fight on two fronts
against what must have seemed like half the world. It doesn’t speak well that it took so
many years to defeat a country as small as Germany, a country that was at an extreme
disadvantage. The average Western soldier, be it a Frenchmen, a Brit or an American was nothing
special to say the least. This isn’t a I hate America thing, but merely the truth. The
average German soldier was head and shoulders above the average Brit or America G.I.
Finally, seven days after its ‘scoop’, the NYT ran another story on the
subject, entitled ‘New Administration Memo Seeks to Foster Doubts About Suspected
Russian Bounties’, which was published on July 3 and buried in the bowels of the
paper.
Its opening paragraphs sought to back up the original story, claiming that an intelligence
memo had said the “… CIA and the National Counterterrorism Centre had
assessed with medium confidence – meaning creditable sources and plausible, but falling
short of near certainty – that a unit of the Russian military service, known as the
GRU, offered the bounties.”
It was only in the last paragraph that the real story – that there was no story
– was revealed: “The agency did intercept data of financial transactions that
provide circumstantial support for the detainee’s account, but the agency does not
have explicit evidence that the money was bounty payments.”
So the blood libel lasted a week!
One of the greatest things about the Trump Presidency was to carve the ‘Fake
News’ meme on the MSM’s forehead.
Mister/Miss, since when the zionized Congress of the US serves the citizenship of the US?
Thank you for reminding (and you do this regularly) of the unfortunate fact that the US is an
occupied territory and the US Congress is a nest of liars, war profiteers, and rabid
zionists.
Les Wexler, Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, and Clintons have inflicted more harm to the US than
any Maria Butin and such. And don’t forget Dick Cheney and Co, the committed traitors and
profiteers by any means.
In my experience people who are sloppy with language are sloppy with thinking. I thought you
might have had similar relevant experience unlike most commenters here. For example, if you
were employing a director of research or even just a junior researcher for a committee of
inquiry would you not rate their careful use of language as a qualification? You want to be
able to rely on the facts they turn up and their reasoning underlying proposed conclusions do
you not?
I am content to know that you don’t read my comments and are as sloppy and inaccurate
in calling me hasbara as the person who called destroying an Iranian nuclear facility
“terrorist”. To extend my last comment, you wouldn’t even be on the long list
for assisting any inquiry I chaired.
Do you know at least, what were you fighting for in Vietnam? How Vietnam threatened US
shores?
Do not tell me fighting communist ideology, because the same Nixon and Kissinger that bombed
Cambodia civilians embraced that communist ideology in China with grave consequences. We have
lunatics in Washington and it is time for direct voting – majority rules.
@Wizard
of Oz as right in the sense that despite the British and French declaration of war, not
much happened – other than the naval blockade and the lame French invasion of the Saar
region. Neither Britain nor France had the courage to follow up on their war declaration, for
fear of unpopular casualties or further destruction of land and people (France), and both hoped
to gain a cheap victory by starving out the German war effort. Had they actually opened a
second front in the fall of 39, the Germans would have collapsed, and the war would have been
over before Christmas.
The GErman victory over FRance surprised everyone, including the Germans
I think the EC got together so quickly because the US wanted to impose their economic model
on Europe with the illusion of control. The Marshall Plan was unraveling as the swindle it was,
and the EC was the answer to keep up the illusion. While the UK was in on the scam, they were
the front for the Americans, as the idiot Churchill had pissed away the Empire to buy his 15
minutes of fame.
Once the shooting starts there are no good guys. Like all wars, WWII was an economic war. The
German economic system could not be allowed to succeed, it was catching on.
You must must have quite a deteriorated mind when Russia can influence your vote. Tell me
the logistics of the process. You must have equally deteriorated mind believing what CNN,
MSNBC, WP or NYT and others dishonest outfits tell you – they are a propaganda machine
for a small unpatriotic parasitic group.
There is a hierarchy in the blame game . Trump isn’t on the top . If he were, the vile
Democrats would be asking review and discussion by broader media ,Dept of Justice and Treasury
either to discredit or confirm the following story
in–“Venezuela’s interim government wants access to funds confiscated in
the US from corrupt officials, saying it belongs to the Venezuelan people. But US officials
appear to have other plans. The Treasury Department diverted $601 million last year from its
forfeiture fund to help build President Trump’s border wall. (Leer en español)
https://www.univision.com/univision-news/latin-america/legal-battle-over-venezuelas-looted-billions-heats-up
Since the United States initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela’s elected leftist
government in January 2019, up to $24 billion worth of Venezuelan public assets have been
seized by foreign countries, primarily by Washington and member states of the European Union.
President Donald Trump’s administration has used at least $601 million of that looted
Venezuelan money to fund construction of its border wall with Mexico, according to government
documents first reviewed by Univision Univision reviewed US congressional records and court
documents and found that the Trump administration tapped into $601 million of the Treasury
Department’s “forfeiture fund” to supplement the wall constructio https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/29/trump-stolen-venezuelan-money-border-wall-mexico/
Reason no-one is doing it is because hating Trump could always be swapped for worshipping
something more sinister and idiotic .
We would have heard a similar story only if Russia extracted something like this from
Ukraine or Libya .
I suggest you seek treatment for you pathological hate. Russia want to be a friend in
peaceful coexistence but it is sinister players in Washington that constantly need/create
enemies to build military industrial complexes instead of consumer goods which are supplied
from China.
I have been a supported of the current executive before he considered running. And his
choice to agree with the intel report and more was a fairly tough pill to swallow. As it turns
it was but one of many.
No I found the intel dubious. And I think the executive could have challenged in a manner
that did not call the CIA and other agencies DIA, etc. or damage his ability to curtail his
policy agenda. But having signed — he essentially states Pres Putin and the Russians are
active enemies of the US given that scenario
one would draw on our behavior in Afghanistan hen we supported the Taliban with weapons to
kill Russian soldiers —-
@Trinity
fought more effectively and efficiently than the novice American soldiers. Then there were
technical factors which were naturally advantageous to the more experienced military. For
example the famous 88mm anti-aircraft gin turned anti-tsnk gun was never matched by the Allies
(I thin) and the German tactics for its use were also superior. Germany, though less than the
Soviet Union had another advantage over Britain and France. It’s population went on
growing fast for a generations beyond the end of high growth in Britain and, especially,
France. For example there were 2 million Germans born in 1913 to provide young men for the army
in the 30s.
Yes, as I’ve said repeatedly, the ‘sinister players’, the Judaic NEOCON
cabal want to keep America and Russia apart mainly for their hate of Christianity and gentiles,
and try to destroy them both.
@Curmudgeon
uld be a return to what was indeed Hitler’s scheme of continental autarky and a more even
distribution of wealth, and a democratic model much more in line with the Prussian model, the
latter bearing significant resemblance with the Chinese Mandarin system. The Chinese Communists
are really doing nothing different than the old emperors running a meritocracy rather than an
idiocracy. Western democracies, esp the US, with their insane and horrendously expensive
election circuses tend to achieve the latter. I hear Kanye West is running for president now.
The problem with China is not Communism but their adoption of Western state-capitalism.
I am sure President Putin would be delighted to draw international attention to this new
symbol of a Christian resurgence in Russia. President Trump would appreciate the splendor of
such a backdrop for his meeting with another major head of state. Many of the Evangelicals
among Trumps’s base would be gobsmacked to learn that Mr. Putin is not running a godless,
soulless Communist hellstate. And many of people in the US State Department and the rest of the
Swamp would utterly sh*t their pants.
True dat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the exceptionals.
And Cheney’s daughter burns the midnight oil in order to keep the pot boiling in
Afghanistan. MUST have U.S. troops there to oppose “terrorists” with AKs.
NYT is a rental rag that always favored Soviets and now CCP, why cite it anymore?
The Russia distraction distracts from Piglosi, Feinstein, Biden, Bushes, congress and corps
etc etc being in bed$ with China. With the side benefit of Russian alienation from the US
driving Russian goods into the China slaughter house on the cheap.
@Derer
pants over Assad’s or Gaddafi’s purported authoritarianisms like they’re
skunk pie. Eeeww!
You’re right that we have lunatics in Washington but I don’t think “direct
voting” is the answer. Devolution plus draconian anti-trust enforcement. crucifixion of
the Antifa filth, massive deportations, ending black privilege, brutally honest debate over
black failure, draconian anti-vote fraud operations, and naming and neutralizing the role and
power of organized Jewry and its wealth seem more likely to get us back on track. Please be
more creative then “majority rule.”
Jesus. “Choke points” can be dealt with from afar. It takes a while to rebuild
railroad bridges. The concept of the Russian and Iranian enemies has worn a little thin these
last few days. It’s just assumed that Russia is a malignant force just as it’s
universally assumed that “special sauce” is the way to go on McDonalds’
hamburgers. I accept neither proposition.
I want troops on the U.S. southern border not on the “flanks” of Iran or
policing “transit corridors” here and there but that’s just me.
@Wizard
of Oz a refuses to extradite a woman to Britain for actual homicide. Zero grounds to hold
him.
From their political standpoint the safest way out is for Assange to simply die in the
maximum-security prison, so the extradition proceedings can simply be dropped. All problems
solved.
So, he is in actual fact in prison for life.
Never mind that Britain did something virtuous in the distant past. Today is today. And
notice that serial murderers can be friendly and courteous between murders but that nice
behaviour doesn’t exonerate them for the murders. Nazi Germany looks angelic relative to
the Britain of today.
“The Gulf of Tonkin “event” was a lie, so there’s that.”
No. It in reality, it was a series of confused messages from the patrol boat. But was used
to support a defense of S. Vietnam — the matter is of no consequence. The US was going to
defend S. Vietnamese sovereignty regardless of the Tonkin event.
Today on TruNews Rick interviews Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, a free speech
alternative to the tyrants at Twitter. They discuss how the Silicon Valley elite use their
satanic bias to silence opposition and have a mission to purge Christianity from their
platforms.
FYI while BLM and RG draw our attention and now RABAS have made all other conspiracies
recede into Corona graveyard
( Russia gate and Russia Afghan Bounty American Solider )
Kushner stoke and his DNA repaired the monetary damages back at home of origin .
Israel lobby organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America ($2-5 million),
Friends of the IDF ($2-5 million) and the Israeli American Council ($1-2 million) are grabbing
huge 100% forgivable loans from the CARES Act PPP program.
According to SBA data released on Monday, Israeli’s Bank Leumi has doled out a quarter to
a half billion dollars under the PPP program, despite being called out for operating in the
occupied West Bank.
Leumi has given sweetheart deals to fellow Israeli companies Oran Safety Glass (which defrauded
the US Army on bulletproof glass contracts) and Energix, which operates power plants in the
occupied Golan Heights and West Bank.
This exchange took place today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
This video clip with additional information is available on IRmep’s YouTube
Channel.
Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book The Israel Lobby Enters State Government. He is
director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy IRmep in Washington, D.C. which
co-organizes IsraelLobbyCon each year at the National Press Club.
@geokat62
– colonial expansion,
– rolling genocide of the Palestinian people, witness 2014 Operation Protective Edge,
– terrorist attacks of neighboring Arab/Muslim states – Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq,
Occupied Territories, Iran & Syria;
– terrorist attacks on Western nations, incl. the UK, the US, & France (since its
Parliament voted to recognize Palestine as a state in 2014), and
– sponsoring of terror organizations e.g, ISIS, to continue its proxy war on
Syria.
– etc, etc
In addition to Constantinople, years later defending Ottoman remnants in Bosnia and Kosovo
against the Christians by “cigar” Clinton and warmonger Blair that introduced the
Islamization of Europe.
@Erzberger
e lines of making distinctions e.g. between deliberate murder of harmless civilians and forcing
choices on them (starve Russian prisoners and ration food to mothers and children e.g.). Of
course the choice to get rid of their government and stop the war is unrealistic even in the
post Cold War world. What did sanctions on Iran produce?? Just civilian deaths.
** it is only recently that I discovered that it made a big contribution to diverting German
effort from the Eastern Front though it is not surprising that Stalin thought the absence of a
Second Front in France was meant to help the Germans savage the USSR.
@Patagonia
Man he approx dozen Israeli dual citizens he alleges are in the Australian Parliament
contrary to the provisions of the Australian constitution.
So, don’t encourage him Geo, by thanking him. That Israeli nonsense is enough to brand
him as a nutter.
As to Quadrant, what does it matter that, in the 50s, and maybe till about 1970, it was
given some financial support by the CIA? Really, what is the point in the 21st century? Does it
matter to current affairs that Robert Maxwell owned the Daily Mirror till the 90s?
If I don’t reply to all the rubbish no one should infer the truth of anything
Patagonia Man alleges.
He takes various commandments of God and distills it into a silly… Debt = Sin.
Indeed, it is true that one can take anything and make it fit their delusional way of thought.
E.g. the 3 in 1, of the pagan Trinity.
Of course, that does not mean, Usury (extortionate moneylending) ≠ Sin, which it most
certainly is.
The Ten Commandments were about debt? A silly interpretation. They are primarily about
Monotheism and a righteous way-of-life, and refraining from usury is just one aspect of it.
Christianity got perverted? Yes, it most certainly is a pagan perversion of True
Monotheism.
“Sure, Poland bears major responsibility for WW 2, and lending themselves to now
hosting US nukes and troops to be moved over from Germany signals that they once again have not
learned a thing from their past.”
— Stepping on rakes as a national pastime.
@Ann
Nonny Mouse an associated organisation whose stated objective is to ‘maximise support
for the State of Israel within the British Liberal Democrat Party’…
Spaight claims that drawing the war to the British isles was done in solidarity with the
Soviets. This is nonsense but a timely propaganda move at a time when German defeat was
assured. Stalin did no fall into that trap. He lknew about Operation Pike and Operation
Impossible, and had zero reason to trust the British. Wikipedia has a page on either
Operation
Denialist? A careful textual analysis tells me you are saying WoZ denies what you assert,
which is that there are about a dozen Israeli dual citizens in the Australian Parliament,
contrary to law. Instead of coyly dancing around the issue what about meeting the challenge to
name at least some?
@Erzberger
Thanks. Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany. I gather attacks on London from the start were a
strategic error by Hitler because the Liluftwaffe should have kept up its attacks on Britisk
airfields. Interesting that Albert Speer, in the “World at War” series, said that
four more raids like the 1000 bomber raid on Hamburg (or maybe it was Cologne) would have
finished the war. Why couldn’t Bomber Command do I it? Maybe it was because Eisenhower
won the battle to have bombers diverted to bombing the Pas we Calais (mostly) and Normandie.
“Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany.”
Wrong.
BTW, the Blitz is a misnomer. Blitzkrieg is tactical air support for ground troops. Neither
applies to the air attacks on German cities in May 1940, or the German retaliation, several
months later, that we know as the Blitz.
Richard Overy though has argued that the German Blitz showed the British how it was done
efficiently, so they improved their bombing strategy accordingly afterwards. Whatever
Back in the CHOICES thread, we had discussion on the US bullying Iran, and the semantics
of whether the US was engaging in "war" against Iran. I hope not to get caught up in those
semantics again, but here are a couple of good pieces to show the situation.
The latest Renegade Inc episode interviews Gareth Porter, who draws from Smedley Butler
and talks about the "racket" of the security state of the US, which acts only to perpetuate
and extend itself, and to increase its funding by all means.
The episode answers several questions about the US posture towards Iran. Porter supplies
the history and background to illustrate the US anger for Iran. Sharmine Narwani makes an
appearance also, and together they show why the Pentagon will never conduct acts of war
against Iran that will provoke the kind of overt retaliation that Iran delivered by targeting
the US bases this year.
The US will only conduct acts that Iran will not overtly respond to. It will escalate its
theater right up to that red line, but if it crosses the line - as it did with killing
Soleimani - it will be by miscalculation. The only purpose of the US security state is to
escalate the threat level to keep the funding coming, and to leave no possible margin for
de-funding by Congress. It's a racket, and the racket has swallowed all statecraft.
Once I suggested seriously that Ukraine could not be understood in terms of statecraft,
but only in terms of thievery. It becomes increasingly clear that the tenets of organized
crime are now the only way to parse US action.
~~
Iran meanwhile, lives by statecraft. It will always respond when that red line is crossed
- always and without hesitation. My view is that Iran is continuously working for the total
departure of the US from West Asia, as it said that it would in retribution for Soleimani.
Much of what it does we don't see, but I note the "resistance" axis goes from strength to
strength in solidarity. It was ready to erupt when Iran attacked the US base, but the US
disengaged and this unified axis of several nations and forces stood down.
So the school of thought presented for example by Richard Steven Hack here, that
the US will war on Iran for decades if it can, simply to feed the MIC, is correct. What's not
correct is that the US can perform much in the way of military action against Iran.
We stumbled over the word "war" so perhaps we can talk about minor activities of warfare,
which are not enough to bring the theater to full battle. All the nations in the region have
tolerated US incursions because to fight them head on would provoke escalation that serves
less purpose than living with them - there is a time for everything.
But we have to understand the red lines. And we have to understand that because we see
nothing moving, it doesn't mean nothing is moving. Narwani makes some good points about that
- and see her full interview on Renegade from last year for a good understanding of what Iran
is as a nation and an adversary. It's clear that the Pentagon agrees with her.
As to the Resistance axis, this interview with Lebanese analyst Anees Naqqash is worth a
quick read. It tells us much about Lebanon.
It is not the case that Iran is doing nothing in response to US warfare against it and its
regional allies. The red flag is still flying, and the Iranians take it seriously.
Hong Kong has a long history of being the base camp of western intelligence agencies in the
Asia-Pacific. Much has been written about the western intelligence agencies' covert operations out of Hong Kong
before, during and after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in China.
In the case of Russia, too, western intelligence activities are showing signs of making
another determined push for a post-Putin scenario in the Kremlin. The West's calculation is
that if Putin were to step down in 2024, he would very soon become a "lame duck". Like in Hong
Kong, western intelligence has developed extensive networks within
Russia through which it is feasible to fuel unrest if political uncertainties coalesce with
social and economic grievances. The Russian counter-intelligence is very well aware of this
danger.
Putin has outwitted the western game plan to destabilise Russia. The constitutional
amendment allows him to seek another two six-year terms and he intends to keep everyone
guessing. Keeping the western adversaries guessing is also what the Chinese security law in
Hong Kong hopes to achieve.
The western intelligence operating out of the city henceforth comes under direct scrutiny of Beijing .
Recruitment of local agents, planning and mounting operations inside China, or inciting unrest
in Hong Kong to weaken China -- such covert operations become far more difficult and risky for
the US, British and Australian intelligence. Interestingly, Xi used the expression "external
sabotage and intervention" in his conversation with Putin today.
Beijing and Moscow have voiced strong support for each other's moves to strengthen national
security. On June 2, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said,
"We note that the national referendum on constitutional amendments, a major event in
Russia's political calendar, is going on smoothly. Results released by the Central Elections
Commission reflect the Russian people's choice. As Russia's friendly neighbour and
comprehensive strategic partner of coordination for a new era, China will always respect the
development path independently chosen by the Russian people and support Russia's efforts to
realise lasting stability and promote socioeconomic development.
"We stand ready to work together with the Russian side to act on the consensus reached by
our heads of state, deepen all-round strategic coordination and mutually-beneficial cooperation
in various areas, and bring greater benefits to our two peoples."
On the same day, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said in Moscow, "We
noted the entry into force of the law on ensuring national security in the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region of the PRC on July 1, 2020 by the decision of the Standing Committee of
the National People's Congress of China.
"In this context, we would like to reaffirm that Russia's position of principle on the
situation in Hong Kong remains unchanged. We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the PRC and consider all issues pertaining to Hong Kong to be China's domestic affair. We
are against any attempts by external forces to interfere in relations between the central
government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC."
Cooperation between the Russian and Chinese security agencies in the realm of internal
security can only stem from a high level of mutual understanding at the highest level.
Significantly, on July 4, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov poured cold water on
President Trump's invitation to Putin to attend a G7 summit in the US, calling it a "flawed"
idea.
Moscow has any number of legitimate reasons to distance itself from Trump's
invite, but what Ryabkov chose was very telling. He said, "The idea of the so-called expanded
G7 summit is flawed, because it is unclear to us how the authors of that initiative plan to
consider the Chinese factor. Without China, it is just impossible to discuss certain issues in
the modern world."
In effect, Rybakov thwarted Washington's move to isolate China. Trump's advisors were naive
to estimate that Moscow could be baited to join its containment strategy against China. Ryabkov
publicly administered the
Kremlin's snub.
Enter Russia. Coincidence or not, small fires are being lit lately on the Moscow streets as
well, and they are spreading into significant protests
against President Vladimir Putin. If the extradition law was the pretext for the Hong Kong
turmoil, it is the election to the Moscow Duma (city legislature) that has apparently triggered
the Russian protest.
Protestors in Moscow, August 10, 2019
Just as there is economic and social discontent in Hong Kong, the popularity of Putin has
declined lately which is attributed to the stagnation of the Russian economy.
In both cases, the American agenda is blatantly "regime change". This may seem surprising,
since the Chinese and Russian leaderships appear rock solid. The legitimacy of the Chinese
Communist Party over which President Xi Jinping presides and the popularity of Putin still at a
level that is the envy of any politician anywhere in the world, but the doctrine of "colour
revolutions" is not built on democratic principles.
Colour revolutions are about upturning an established political order and it has no
co-relation with mass support. The colour revolution is coup by other means. It is not even
about democracy. The recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine exposed that
the colour revolution of 2014 was an insurrection that the nation disowns.
Of course, the stakes are very high when it comes to destabilising China and Russia. Nothing
less than the global strategic balance is involved. The US' dual containment strategy against
Russia and China is quintessentially the New American Century project -- US' global hegemony
through the 21st century.
The US wagered that Moscow and Beijing would be hard pressed to cope with the spectre of
colour revolutions and that would isolate them. After all, authoritarian regimes are exclusive
and into the sanctum sanctorum of their internal politics not even their closest friends or
allies are allowed in.
This is where Moscow has sprung a nasty surprise for Washington. The Russian Foreign
Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said in Moscow on Friday that Russia and China should
exchange information on the US interference in their internal affairs. She flagged that Moscow
is aware of the Chinese statements that the US interferes in Hong Kong affairs and treats this
information "with all seriousness."
"Moreover, I think it would be right and useful to exchange such information through
respective services," Zakharova said, adding that the Russian and Chinese sides will discuss
the issue soon. She added that the US intelligence agency is using technology to destabilise
Russia and China.
Earlier on Friday, the
Russian Foreign Ministry had summoned the head of the Political Section in the US embassy
Tim Richardson, and presented him with an official protest against the US encouraging an
unauthorised opposition rally in Moscow on August 3.
Indeed, Moscow is far more experienced than Beijing in neutralising covert operations by the
US intelligence. It is a hallmark of the great skill and expertise as well as the tenacity of
the Russian system that through the entire Cold War era and "post-Soviet" period, there has
never been anything like the turmoil on Tiananmen Square in Beijing (1989) or Hong Kong (2019)
triggered by the US intelligence.
Moscow's message to Beijing is direct and candid -- 'United we stand, divided we fall.' No
doubt, the two countries have been in consultation and wanted the rest of the world to know.
Indeed, the message Zakharova transmitted -- on a joint firewall against US interference -- is
of epochal significance. It elevates the Russia-China alliance to a qualitatively new level,
creating yet another political underpinning of collective security.
So they dusted of McFaul to provide the support for bounty provocation. I wonder whether
McFaul one one of Epstein guests, or what ?
So who was the clone of Ciaramella this time? People want to know the hero
Notable quotes:
"... Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis. ..."
"... Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ..."
"... As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century . ..."
"... Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan? ..."
"... Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House? ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. ..."
"... Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation." ..."
"... Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence. ..."
"... Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper. ..."
"... The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website. ..."
"... “It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.” ..."
"... They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”. Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter. ..."
"... In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin. ..."
"... Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal. ..."
"... from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.” ..."
"... Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available. ..."
"... Gekaufte journalisten. Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”. ..."
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" --
however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis
LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper
was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half
years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On
May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian
technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama
appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community
Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get
elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century
.
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Tarus77 , July 6, 2020 at 14:25
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad. You cannot destroy what does not exist; like Democracy in
these United States. Nor God or Putin could. This has always being a fallacy. This is not a
democracy; same thing with ”communist" China or the USSR .Those two were never
socialist. There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter.Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure .
As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies.
Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles (fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
The USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ, ”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
War is no longer about winning. Endless conflict is the name of the game. Military defense
contractors are the most influential of all lobbyists and so intertwined in government that
it's truly & effectively fascist. Profit is the end, war is the means.
Isn't USA effectively at war with Venezuela? Isn't it an act of war to seize billions
in State assets - including embassies - and support a coup?
Isn't USA effectively at war with Syria? If ISIS has been defeated - as Trump has said
several times - then USA is illegally occupying Syria oil fields. In addition, USA
"recognized" Israel's claim to the Golan Heights - against UN resolutions that deny that
claim.
Isn't USA at war with Yemen? USA supplies Saudi Arabia and UAE with weapons for this
war plus targeting.
Isn't it an act of war to renege on terms to end a war? If so, then one could say that
USA has renewed it's war with North Korea.
Isn't it an act of war to impose a virtual embargo on a country via crippling
third-party sanctions? And wasn't the assassination of Solemani an act of war? Then USA is
effectively at war with Iran. Putin's reminder that Iran was a Russian ally after the
downing of the USA drone may be the reason that we are not in a hot war with Iran.
USA argued for a "two-state" solution for Palestine for two decades, then (under Trump)
switched almost entirely to Israel's side. That sounds like an act of war against the
"State" that USA has argued should exist.
Isn't USA still at war with the Taliban? Or is that just a 20-year "police action" like
Vietnam?
And what about Libya that NATO Turkey is seeking to conquer - after USA played a key
(and illegal) role in destroying?
And then there are tensions with Russia and China, which only seem to grow more intense
every week. The Trump Administration seeks to stop NordStream (for security reasons) and
punish China for Trump's inept pandemic response and for exercising control of Hong Kong
(which is long recognized as Chinese sovereign territory).
<> <> <> <> <>
IMO Trump has started wars but the countries and peoples he picks on know that it's
best not to respond too forcibly or they invite greater damage.
I'm surprised that moa commenters give any credence to the claims that portray Trump as
peaceful/peace-loving. In addition to his belligerence, Empire front-man Trump has initiated
a huge military build-up, ended long-standing peace treaties, and militarized space.
This is the standard Washington rhetoric that accompanies their coup attempts. It is a
companion to the "moderate democracy" rhetoric about U.S. satellite governments like Saudi
Arabia. The rhetoric tells you that these people have zero interest in democracy, honesty, or
avoiding hypocrisy. Some of Bush's neocons are Biden Supporters; what a surprise.
@ Jackrabbit 102
re: Isn't USA effectively at war with Venezuela?. . .etc
Obviously you don't know jack about actual war, do you.
Or give us your creds?
I dropped back in to see what follows...imagine my deflation to find that people don't know
what war is.
@108 Don Bacon
Precisely. No one who has ever experienced the tragedy of war will ever mistake the
playground games of make-believe war with the real thing.
~~
That's the problem with the US administration, and its satraps and the many camp followers
and court jesters who follow it. They don't know the difference between posturing war and
waging war.
The difference is so profound that it calls for not only a new language but a new
departure point of reference within one's soul even to begin to speak of such things.
The US will pursue the make-believe war it postures through in order to score points
within its small group circle. But real war, should it ever come to touch it - and it will if
it pursues its childishness too far - will shock it into total frozen fear the moment that it
strikes.
Iran knew this, and had the human strength to test it and to prove it. Everything else, up
to this point, was an accommodation by the world's nations to the posturing of the US for its
own internal coherence. It was a matter of supporting the US ego rather than of being close
to the event when that ego falls apart, with potentially explosive consequences.
But Iran had the strength of character to stand on its principles, and to proclaim its
truth. And by the way, that stand is by no means done, despite what the trolls may suggest.
Iran has barely begun its action to remove the US from Southwest Asia, and we will only see
the footprints of its actions as we realize that the US has departed. And this will happen,
regardless of the US narrative and its many parrots.
~~
I don't blame the US or any of its supporters for threatening war when all it really does
is act as a nuisance and a spoiler in those few platforms left to it. Those it oppresses have
so far mostly chosen to bear the insult rather than to make a fuss. But Iran has shown the
way, and one should not expect many more of those oppressed to put up with the abuse from the
US many more times.
What is clearly known is that the very last thing the US can do is go to war, in the real
meaning of that term. The very last thing the US is capable of, is war. And the generals of
all the nations of the world know this because they have seen the proof of it. Anyone who
doesn't see the proof of it is behind the curve, and may well have license to comment here
and elsewhere, but fortunately does not sit in the security councils of the nations of the
world.
~~
If anyone wants to think that the US is "effectively" at war with another nation, then
consider that Iran is absolutely "effectively" at war with the US, just as Hezbollah is
beyond any doubt at war with Israel. And so what? When positions are "effectively" this or
that, then they had better produce "effective" results. And it is only from these effective
results that we can count the coup of the engagement. Hezbollah and Iran don't need to be
told the difference between real attacks and propaganda attacks.
What they count is the real force.
Everything else is bluster. And I was 16 years old myself once, so in all humility I don't
condemn this braggadocio, which I understand all too humanly.
But neither do I take it as real in the real world.
@ Grieved 109
Thanks for helping to deliver us from all that illusory make-believe on war from the deep
thinkers who apparently man this place. And yes, Iran has shown the way, which includes its
ability to put a serious hurt on US forces if attacked. We're talking about the possibility
of lots of US dead bodies, military and dependents, men women and children, also sunken
ships, and not just some supporting proxies and aerial bombing with the attendant publicity
that suggests to some that genuine war exists, when it doesn't.
People need to get real.
Trump is really no different than Clinton, GWBush, and Obama. Each a front-man for the
Deep State/Empire. Each portrayed as well-meaning, peace-loving men that were FORCED! to war
for all the right reasons. In that context, these Jedi mind-tricks fall
flat:
USA can't wage war?
Yet it's bullying other countries and engaging in acts of war.
Trump's belligerence is all bluster?
Yet USA is preparing for war with a costly arms build-up and massive propaganda
campaign (as described well by Caitlin Johnstone).
No one need fear USA?
Yet power-elites in USA subscribe to supremacist ideologies (neoconservativism,
neoliberalism, zionism), advocate a "New World Order", and a 'rules-based' international
system that can only be described as "might makes right".
With only four months left to the U.S. presidential elections, and the increasing
likelihood of Donald Trump, the most pro-Israel President in history, losing, Israel has been
trying to provoke Iran to start a war, so that it can drag the United State into it. This is
not anything new. For over a decade Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to force the United
States to go to war with Iran, and Israel itself almost attacked Iran three times between
2010 and 2011. But the with events of the last several months darkening the prospects of a
second Trump term, Israel feels a new urgency for a war with Iran.
For over two years Israel tried to provoke Iran by attacking Iranian-backed Shiite forces
in Syria, but Iran has opted not to retaliate. Since the attacks did not provoke Iran to
retaliate, and also failed to dislodge Iran's military advisers and the Shiite forces that it
trained, armed, and dispatched to Syria, Israel has seemingly turned to attacking Iran
directly within its borders.
The events of past two months in Iran are indicative of Israel's new push for war. These
events include large-scale infernos, explosions, and cyberattacks, all believed to have been
carried out by Israel and its Iranian proxies, the "fake opposition" which is the part of the
opposition that supports economic sanctions and military attacks against Iran, and has even
allied itself with small secessionist groups that carry out terrorist attacks inside
Iran.
In this video, Prof. Wolff talks about the breakdown of the capitalist system and outlines
4 major problems that the US has been faced with without for quite some time with no solution
in sight: climate change, capitalism's intrinsic instability, systemic racism inherited from
slavery, and lastly the lack of mechanisms to manage viruses.
In this video, Prof. Wolff compares and contrasts the preparation for and management of
COVID-19 with how the US has managed military preparedness and the handling of military
confrontations and activities. It has succeeded at one and completely failed at the other. He
explains why.
Posted by: Grieved | Jul 7 2020 1:09 utc | 96 Prediction: The US may start a war but the US
will not finish that war. Its opponent will end that war, by causing unacceptable losses to
the US - something quite easily achieved, and already proved to the world by Iran in this
very year of 2020.
I agree. The US can not defeat Iran, short of nuking Tehran, which is not in the cards for
geopolitical reasons. However, the US can devastate much of Iran's civilian infrastructure,
which, like most such infrastructures, can't run and hide. The US can also kill a million or
two milllion Iranians, as it proved in Iraq.
All that will do, however, is merely guarantee that Iran will never surrender. Nor would
Iran ever surrender in the first place. Which is why I tend to reference the upcoming war as
the "New Thirty Years War". The clear example is the near twenty years we've spent in
Afghanistan - which is vastly weaker than Iran. Each war - Vietnam, Afghanistan, and arguably
Iraq - has lasted longer than the last and with failure as an outcome.
The US can keep attacking Iran from the air and sea for thirty years - but without ever
defeating Iran. It will do so because the military-industrial complex will make profits every
year from that war - and in the end, that's all that matters to the US (along with the
Only if the US tries a land invasion will the US lose a massive number of troops. But even
that will come over time, albeit at a *much* higher rate than the US saw in either Vietnam,
Iraq, or Afghanistan. US annual casualties would probably be in the low to medium 5 digits
per year, as opposed to the low 4 digits in most of those wars. In other words, four or five
times the rate in Iraq. That's as compared with a hot war in North Korea which would see
50,000 US casualties in the first ninety days, or any war with China or Russia. See "United
States military casualties of war" on Wikipedia. It's possible that casualties could rise to
the level of WWI, if the war lasts five or ten years, or even WWII if it lasts twenty - or
even higher if it lasts thirty.
Most people think the US will not try a land invasion. I've argued, however, that the
*only* way to even attempt to prevent Iran from closing the Straits for the duration of the
war will be for the US to put several score thousand Marines and US troops on Iran's shores
to attempt to prevent launching of mines and anti-ship missiles. This would be difficult
since Iran has a long Persian Gulf shoreline, Iran has fortified that shoreline, there are
many places to launch weapons from that shoreline - and any such US troops would be subject
to both conventional and guerrilla war by the Iranian military and perhaps a million or more
Iranian Basij militia. Nonetheless, the US is likely to be dumb enough to try.
In any event, the US will eventually be forced to withdraw either because the US
electorate would eventually tire of the war - although as Afghanistan proves, that could take
a *very* long time, mostly depending on the casualty rate, however, as I indicateed - or
because another "threat" takes precedence, which would likely mean either Russia or
China.
"And the US will strain its mighty Wurlitzer to the utmost to declare victory as it
retreats."
Yup. And the sad part is that the US electorate will probably believe that, then forget
about the reality and be willing to commit to a new war within another ten years.
In addition to the above, the idea that because there's a difference between "war" and
"conflicts before war" there is *no chance* of war is absurd.
Every war started with this sort of enmity between nations historically. As I've said
before, with this level of enmity between the US and Iran, and arguably between the US and
Russia, and the US and China, war is inevitable. With the latter two countries, such a war is
likely to be nuclear - which is why it hasn't happened yet - that risk is *way* too high
(although it can still happen if a miscalculation causes a conventional war, which then
escalates into nuclear.)
A war with Iran doesn't have that risk. No nuclear power that I am aware of is going to
enter the war on Iran's side and thus risk a nuclear war over Iran. Iran itself will not
develop or use nuclear weapons. Israel *might* consider using nuclear weapons against Iran -
that would be a*huge* mistake geopolitically and probably result in Israel's destruction by
geopolitical means if not by military means. But neither Russia nor China are going to
directly engage the US military to defend Iran. That would be stupid and putting their own
national survival at risk for the benefit of another nation. As Percival Rose would say,
"That ain't gonna happen."
The real problem for some people is cognitive dissonance. They can't emotionally accept
the possibility of these wars occurring - so they don't. They are reduced to saying, "well,
it hasn't happened...yet."
The "yet" is the operative term. There is no logical extension of that term to mean
"never".
There are many other mistaken assumptions, such as:
USA wouldn't start a war it can't win
We've seen that USA is often satisfied with just smashing another country.
USA would strain to justify a war or continue a war
USA is very adept at propaganda. They can apply pressure that forces a country to
"lash out", or intervene to help an abused population or an ally. USA also likes to use
proxies. Example: destabilize with "freedom fighters" then intervene when the target
country commits "atrocities" as it attempts to defend itself.
Trump is a negotiator, he doesn't want to fight
Trump is a stooge. The Deep State will decide when they're ready to fight.
Americans are tired of war
If only that were true. Most Americans just don't care. And are willing to accept
what ever lies they're told (at least for the first months).
What is plain to see is all of these "wars" are not wars but provocations, aggression from
one side and bullying. In every case the other side does not want a war.
Interesting how the US has way upped its aggression on Venezuela without a peep from the
people. This started off with some nonsense about an idiot named Guaido and is now full blown
nastiness.
Sadly they are not the only stooges. It beggars belief that people everywhere believe that
they can elect someone to change the system in the country in which they reside. Political
stripes have very little meaning as the differences are incremental at best. The
bureaucracies necessary to keep the modern systems of governance afloat are staggeringly
monolithic. Electing one individual, or party, or parties and presuming that the system will
somehow be improved upon is a laughable fantasy. It leads to a continuous cycle of four years
of initiatives to tear down the previous four years initiatives unless you're a second term
government. But actual change is still the sole purview of the entrenched bureaucracy or
"deep state" or whatever other label you prefer. To Jackrabbit's point, most decisions hinge
on whether or not the bureaucracies in charge believe a war, a social change etc. can be
implemented and a desired result achieved. It takes a finely developed sense of myopia to
think that the only stooges are those of the political class. Says volumes about the people
that put them there, and continues to suggest that they are electing "change".
As an aside, the Frank Zappa quote that "government is the entertainment division of the
military industrial complex" remains potently poignant.
Calling what the US is doing to these countries "war" is like saying that Floyd was in a
fight with the cop's knee.
Yes,there has been some very measured retaliation from some of the victims, but it amounts to
Floyd saying he can't breathe.
@450 132
The provocations and responses of the formation of a war with Iran have been very interesting
and I think that if Iran hadn't of shot down the Ukrainian airliner after their attack
against the American base we may have already or continue to witness that war. As I see it
there was a real hard on to go after Iran but word of the shoot down allowed the Don to pull
back and let Iran suffer the black mark without escalation.
There are way too many itchy trigger fingers and pretexts for this and that can be easily
engineered and sold to the masses. Helps Biden or whomever if he can blame the future cluster
fuck on cleaning up donnies mess. I expect something expectedly unexpected in the coming
months.
War is not a static proposition and its meaning and definition can and should change over
time to fit the prevailing military strategies and economic paradigm of the day. We don't
live and operate in an unassailable lexicon vacuum. War is not defined tautologically,
meaning, war is not war. War is many things and can be fought on many dimensional fronts,
meaning not just militarily.
I think war is a state of mind. That's why we talk about "the war on poverty" or a
"propaganda war".
You might say that there is a "Cold War" but the number of acts of war is too numerous for
that and targeted at multiple countries/peoples. It's more like a 'hybrid war' on everyone
that opposes the New World Order that the AZ Empire seeks to impose on the planet.
Importantly, you can't prevent war if you only start thinking of it as 'war' when the
shooting starts.
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to
figure out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
@Robert White how self-important, arrogant, and entitled these jerks are, they would
understand the volcanic rage directed at Trump. But there is more. Many of these people
really are utterly corrupt in the sense that they have made huge amounts of money through
illegal deals, influence-peddling, etc. They felt secure in the knowledge that Hillary
Clinton was surely not going to go after them, though she might have insisted on a piece of
the pie,, like the greasy, small-town lawyer she is. Now things are not nearly so sure and
they know it.
Trump is far from perfect, in any way you can imagine. Come November, after he has used Joe
Biden as a dishrag, Mr. White and friends will suffer a real case of the sadz.
Russia since Putin does not offer much global profit; Xi Jinping on the other hand does,
for (manufacturing) stock market darlings like Apple, Amazon or Walmart etc. The five Eyes
need an enemy to keep budgets up, anyone will do, and Russia is Wall street's favorite bogey,
keeping China out of the limelight.
Western left keeps on supporting Xi, bedazzled by his orchestrated propaganda of being a
benign ruler. They barely care about Russia, the main activity is denigrating their own West:
"we" are bad = some European colonialists and fascists of two or more generations
ago .
As for the timing of the likely pending Iran war,another consideration is the impact on
financial markets.
The market went into a mini panic last September when the Yemeni missiles hit the Saudi
refineries because the Saudis withdrew ~$60n - $80b from repo markets. Some blame JP Morgan
for that, but someone I know who works at the repo trading desk of the US branch of a large
foreign bank was adamant it was the Saudi pullback and JP Morgan had nothing to do with it. I
thought that the US withdrew Patriot batteries from the Gulf infrastructure in Saudi Arabia,
that is an odd move given Iran could destroy those facilities.
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the
war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to
the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed
Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has
been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the
White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and
Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story.
But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American
soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans,
but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at
least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some
Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign
of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information
according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought
to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but
this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this
week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by
The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know,
capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or
they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story
advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to
escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international
dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence
Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the
Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see
Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys
on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for
nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting
on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban
troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert
operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban
barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who
were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials
to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell
said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this
latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into
the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true
stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in
the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York
Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made
in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the
Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting
one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing
away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19
years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their
country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory.
Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink
this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and,
you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now,
and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember
that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when
US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial
slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been
funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits
to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just
simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing
of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution,
that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent
investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in
the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the
domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or
current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and
mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this
case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties
to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for
nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now
we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The
Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story
was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant,
has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden.
They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former
campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with
it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush
campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the
Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who
hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron,
number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that
are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of
anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more
powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American
peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for
congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden
campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican
operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like
this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its
base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this
Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state
who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you
know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here,
starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My
job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America
seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go
over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as
well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed,
we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned
in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of
you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can
really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are
helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or
want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.
And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able
to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq
in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually
said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So,
this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of
every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later
found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat
al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie
Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy
director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing
Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy
price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL:What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone
like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's
such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just
how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken
hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the
vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's
like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert
Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing?
They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I
mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you
know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the
minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick
Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it,
you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the
Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here
he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being
even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign
policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not
hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about
in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president
do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean,
just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only
pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton
song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any
apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just
watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is
what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous,
bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a
sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is
ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed
on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone
could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will
blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over
the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was
ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety
of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in
reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that
and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the
store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an
unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few
months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling
they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under
banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that
everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and
Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it
gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about
it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media
consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do
something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the
disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was
employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the
sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article
recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her
position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position
in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who
wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd
never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the
Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone
who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which
he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked
with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security
state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately
involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason.
I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer
really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at
The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to
understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any
official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and
I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the
junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on
Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security
state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the
space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more
important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding
of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these
conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management
of Savagery , thanks a lot.
Wanted to ask the same question, i am sure B will have something as soon as some facts are
there to be dissected, seems for now that all we have to go by is the assumption it is either
US or Israel dirty work, one that is hard to disagree with.
Iran will have to respond, 4 attacks in less than 2 weeks is really taking the piss and
makes them look weak. Quite a reversal from the Iran that was seizing tankers, acting on its
threats and dictating the tempo of escalation. Israel and US are only deterred by credible
threats and the longer Iran waits, the more emboldened they will feel.
Perhaps Iran is more focused on investigations and searching through its own ranks for
collaborators or traitors first, meaning it is still not sure who to hit back at. Is it the
US or Israel, who is directly responsible for these attacks? What would be an appropriate
response? Anything too overt could be counterproductive as there is no proof tying the
explosions to anyone, much less anything concrete that Western media would publish that could
justify Iran's actions.
Hezbollah has plenty of problems of its own as explained in B's Lebanon article... so not
likely we'll see rocket showers on Israel any time soon on Iran's behalf. Seems those new
tankers on the way to Venezuela could be targeted soon too... perhaps they are waiting for
that as their pretext for escalation or retaliation?
I expect Iran to measure its response tit-for-tat. If these explosions are the result of
computer intrusion, Iran will respond in cyberspace. If they are not - and I find it hard to
believe they are, disrupting a centrifuge is one thing (and too clever by half), causing an
explosion is another - then Iran or a proxy will have to respond in kind. As the article
cited below states:
He said Israel was "bracing" for an Iranian response, likely via a cyberattack. In an April
cyberattack attributed by western intelligence officials to Iran, an attempt was made to
increase chlorine levels in water flowing to residential Israeli areas.
Probably BS by Israel and the US, but this sort of thing goes on all the time. Note that
there was no explosions involved.
The problem is that covert operations require some planning, especially if hacking is
involved. So Iran's response might be days, weeks or months delayed. Of course, it can
respond more directly by using Iraqi Shia militias against US forces in Iraq, or allies like
Hezbollah elsewhere. But that is a trap the US neocons have laid - anything Iran does can be
used to justify further attacks. Even if Iran proves that these explosions were not
accidents, they will not be believed. So anything Iran does which is not equally covert will
be used to justify further aggression.
There really is no winning this game by Iran. Only if the US and Israel stops covert
attacks - and that isn't going to happen.
Meanwhile, allegedly the EU has claimed Iran has now triggered the JCPOA dispute
mechanism.
I don't know if this is true, but if so, it represents the final collapse of the JCPOA.
The dispute mechanism has a specific time mechanism to which all parties must adhere. So
within a short period of time, Iran will either be granted its sanctions relief as promised
or the deal will end. The deal's snapback mechanism won't be applied, because Russia and
China will veto that no matter the US does. The US has no standing, but will try anyway just
for the propaganda value.
Once the JCPOA is finally declared dead, the US and Israel will escalate their aggression
against Iran, because no one in the ignorant electorate in those countries will be told that
the deal was ruined by Trump and the EU's spinelessness.
Without the JCPOA, the US can revert to the sort of warmongering it engaged in before the
Iraq war - constantly escalating accusations that can never be proven false and an unending
stream of propaganda justifying a war.
The *only* thing preventing an Iran war is Hezbollah's ability to derail the Israeli
economy. The US and Israel have no choice but to find a solution to that problem. Whether
they will succeed in that, and at what cost to Lebanon, is the question.
Historically, I don't think there has ever been this level of enmity between countries
without a war resulting (other than between nuclear armed nations due to MAD.) It may take
some years more to get the Iran war started, but it is inevitable.
And that recognition, contrary to Bagoom's claims, is *not* advocacy. An Iran war is going
to be very bad for *everyone* except Israel, the neocons and the military-industrial
complex.
"... To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility. ..."
"... And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying "hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines". Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident. ..."
On Saturday an explosion
ripped through a power plant in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, marking the third 'mystery'
blast to hit the country in only under a week, and the fourth recently .
State media showed emergency crews on the scene of the daytime incident while a fire raged
at the power plant. This followed days ago
a huge blast which destroyed Sina hospital in northern Tehran, which killed 19 people and
injured 14.
To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the
midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed
as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was
later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility.
And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that
particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying
"hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines".
Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident.
Both US and Israeli media, including The New York Times and Times of Israel, have begun
speculating that it
could be part of a Mossad or CIA op to set back Iran's nuclear development .
The Jerusalem Post on Sunday asked in
a headline and op-ed : Have four explosions pushed Iran farther away from a nuke?
Of the myriad fascinating questions surrounding the four recent, mysterious explosions in
Iran, there is still one key issue that rises above the rest: Has any of this significantly
distanced Iran further from a nuclear weapon?
The jury is still out, as there is so much that is unconfirmed. But to date, the early
answer would need to be: probably not .
Since the IAEA's March report that the Islamic Republic crossed the threshold for having
enough low-level enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, the estimated time for Tehran to enrich
enough of that uranium up to a weaponized level dropped from 12 months to as little as four
months.
Most interestingly, an unnamed intelligence source said to be based in the Middle East told
The
New York Times this past week said of the mysterious incident at Natanz: "The blast was
caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility."
The official added that the bombing "destroyed much of the aboveground parts of the facility
where new centrifuges are balanced before they are put into operation."
Reports out of Iran's state media also suggest a possible cyber-attack, to which Tehran
military officials say "they'll respond" if the attack did indeed originate from Iran's
enemies like the US or Israel.
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint
Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal
incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make
up its mind.
For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's
attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated
concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his
administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.
The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish
but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in
Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy
and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.
Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his
first term with a difficult
reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence
suggesting Russia
was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on
their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.
The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but
his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been
aware.
The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe
meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning
former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe
and the United States with disinformation and election interference .
Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including
Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO
alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the
continent.
But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential
friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may
share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.
Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between
pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have
raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national
security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level
officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their
positions.
Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his
opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be
friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of
impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the
campaign illegally conspired with Russia.
Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with
the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those
findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in
Helsinki .
Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most
significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.
Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control
treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine
despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to
prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties
believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.
At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or
redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance
defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that
Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in
Afghanistan.
On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated,
he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the
objections of the other members.
White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious
inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed
demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in
its ability to create chaos.
I tell people: "Russia dopes their Olympians. America rapes them." The attack on Russian
athletes is just another instance of the American and Western petty hatred of Russia. When
the athletes got independent tests certifying they are clean, they were still not allowed to
participate in many international events. As Russian hackers revealed some of the biggest
names in sports are legally allowed meds because of existing conditions. Sure.Right. Who knew
that the Norwegian team and country have the highest rates of asthma around and required
performance enhancing drugs. Russia was a way to distract away from other country's
doping.
After processing 100% of the ballots, the Central Electoral Commission has summed up
the results: for – 77.92%, against – 21.27%. Turnout – 65%. Amendments to
the Constitution have been approved, and therefore, in fact, adopted. Total changes –
206. Now let's see how the most important parts of the updated Basic Law of the country will
change our lives.
In a graphic within the article, the following is pointed out:
Compare:
In the 1993 vote for the "Yeltsin Constitution", the turnout was 54%.
For the Yeltsin constitution -- 58%.
[This constitution was drawn up under US guidance after the "democrat" Yeltsin had ordered
that the Russian White House be bombarded. It was occupied by protesters against that
Washington puppet's regime. The Yeltsin Constitution gave the president great powers. This is
when that drunken bastard's government was selling off Russian state assets for a kopeck in
the ruble and the whole country had been plunged into abject misery; when that cnut Chubais
had said "tough shit" to those who could not adapt to market conditions and that they would
soon die off and be replaced by a generation that could.]
Turnout for the 2020 vote on the constitution -- 68%.
For the constitution -- 78%.
Harding doesn't like this.
Navalny doesn't like this.
No fucker likes this -- apart from a majority of Russians, that is!
And the following are the amendments that Western critics a Russian liberal shits and
"oppositionists" are squawking about
13. One person cannot hold a post of the president more than 2 terms. Clarification
"in a row" was removed.
14. A reservation has been added that the rule of no more than two terms applies to
the current head of state, but without taking into account the number of terms during which
he held this position before. Which allows Putin to be elected in 2024.
Vladimir Putin is now 67 years old.
I hope he is fit and well in 4 years' time and I hope he stands for re-election
then.
I might add, since it appears to not be generally well-known, that when the revolutionary
government which preceded Yeltsin took power – which it held only a few days –
the KGB commenced 157 investigations into financial misdeeds; 'economic crimes', at least
two-thirds of which involved joint ventures with foreign firms. Yeltsin's triumph put a block
on them all before they could get much beyond identifying some suspects.
"Gorbachev was cautious about the plan when Yavlinsky first presented it last spring,
while Yeltsin backed it. His biggest task will be to restore some value to the discredited
Soviet currency. Says Robert Hormats, former U.S. assistant secretary of state and now vice
chairman of Goldman Sachs International: "The reformers must use the next month or two to lay
out the fundamental pieces of a price and currency reform program." So far, Yavlinsky has
kept quiet about what he will do. Western diplomats expect that he will move quickly to slash
government spending, legalize private property, and abandon price controls. The goal would be
to restore value to the wounded ruble so that it can be made convertible with the dollar and
other hard currencies. Says one diplomat: "There are no more ideological hang-ups. Now they
can at least get the laws in place and start working on the hard part -- implementation."
Under the Harvard plan, all of these Soviet steps would be accompanied by heavy U.S. and
European aid."
Privatize, abolish price controls, borrow huge amounts from the IMF and World Bank.
Certainly sounds a recipe for success but I have this nagging sense that I have heard the
formula before
I have to say the one provision in the new constitution I dislike, and where i agree with
your wife -- clearly a wise woman -- is the citizenship provision.
I am not sure how many PMs we might have lost but we would have lost Michaëlle Jean
& Adrienne Clarkson as GG's. I am a bit neutral on Jean but Clarkson seems to have done
some good work. Showing up in Afghanistan while we had troops there was a plus for me.
I thought that having Cdn Forces there was a horrible idea, but recognising their service was
appropriate for the CinC.
Looks like Liz Cheney words for Russians. Her action suggest growing alliance between Bush
repoblicans and neolibral interventionaistsof the Democratic Party. The alliance directed against
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy them: ..."
"... The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives other states another incentive to do more of this. ..."
"... Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for many years to come. ..."
The immediate response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to keep fighting a
losing conflict.
Barbara Boland
reported yesterday on the House Armed Services Committee's vote to impede withdrawal of
U.S. from Afghanistan:
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar
bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
It speaks volumes about Congress' abdication of its responsibilities that one of the few
times that most members want to challenge the president over a war is when they think he might
bring it to an end. Many of the members that want to block withdrawals from other countries
have no problem when the president wants to use U.S. forces illegally and to keep them in other
countries without authorization for years at a time. The role of hard-liner Liz Cheney in
pushing the measure passed yesterday is a good example of what I mean. The hawkish outrage in
Congress is only triggered when the president entertains the possibility of taking troops out
of harm's way. When he takes reckless and illegal action that puts them at risk, as he did when
he ordered the illegal assassination of Soleimani, the same members that are crying foul today
applauded the action. As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday
sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy
them:
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear
in the Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of
the mission in Afghanistan, and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
The immediate Congressional response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to
make it much more difficult to pull them out of a war that cannot be won. Congressional hawks
bemoan "micromanaging" presidential decisions and mock the idea of having "535
commanders-in-chief," but when it comes to prolonging pointless wars they are only too happy to
meddle and tie the president's hands. When it comes to defending Congress' proper role in
matters of war, these members are typically on the other side of the argument. They are content
to let the president get us into as many wars as he might want, but they are horrified at the
thought that any of those wars might one day be concluded. Yesterday's vote confirmed that
there is an endless war caucus in the House, and it is bipartisan.
The original reporting of the bounty story is questionable for the reasons that Boland has
pointed out before, but for the sake of argument let's assume that Russia has been offering
bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When the U.S. keeps its troops at war in a country for
almost twenty years, it is setting them up as targets for other governments. Just as the U.S.
has armed and supported forces hostile to Russia and its clients in Syria, it should not come
as a shock when they do to the same elsewhere. If Russia has been doing this, refusing to
withdraw U.S. forces ensures that they will continue to have someone that they can target.
The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states
will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction
in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives
other states another incentive to do more of this.
Because the current state of debate about Russia is so toxic and irrational, our political
leaders seem incapable of responding carefully to Russian actions. It doesn't seem to occur to
the war hawks that Russia might prefer that the U.S. remains preoccupied and tied down in
Afghanistan indefinitely.
Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of
their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and
irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with
the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for
many years to come.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico
Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a
columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides
in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
One needs to mention the democratic deficit in the US. All the members voting yes are
representatives, they represent the people in their constituencies, and presumably vote for
what the majority in those constituencies would want, or past promises.
Any poll shows that Americans would rather have the troops brought back home, thank you very
much. But this is not what their representatives are voting for. Talk about democracy!
And what's the logic, if you make an accusation against someone you don't like it must be
true. Okay well then let's drone strike Putin. If you are going to be Exceptional and
consistent, Putin did everything Soleimani did so how can Liz Cotton argue for a different
punishment?
1. Killed U.S. troops in a war zone, 2. planning attacks on U.S. troops.
The entire Russian military plans for attacks all the time just like ours does but the
Neocons have declared that we are the only ones allowed to do that. Verdict, death penalty for
Putin.
Interesting, well reasoned article as usual from Mr. Larison. However, I have to say that I
don't see why Russia would want the US in Afghanistan indefinitely. In primis, they have a
strategic partnership with China (even though we've got to see how Russia will behave now when
there is the India-China rift), and China has been championing the idea of rebuilding the Silk
Road (brilliant idea if you ask me) so in this sense it's more reasonable to assume that they
might be aiming to get stability in the region rather than keep it in a state of unrest (as to
be strategic partners you need to have some kind of common strategy, or at least not a
completely different strategy). In 2018 they (Russia) actually were trying to organise a
mediation process which would have the Afghan Gvt. and the Talibans discuss before the US would
retire the troops, and it was very significative as they managed to get all the parties sitting
around a table for the very first time (even the US participated as an observer).
Secondly, Russia also has pretty decent relations with Iran (at least according to Iranian
press, which seems to be realistic as Russia is compliant to the JCPOA, is not aggressive
towards them, and they're cooperating in the Astana process for a political solution for Syria,
for example), and it wouldn't be so if Russia would pursue a policy which would aim to keep the
US in the Middle East indefinitely, as Iran's WHOLE point is that they want the US out of the
region, so if Russia would be trying to keep the US in the Middle East indefinitely, that would
seriously upset Iran.
Thirdly, Russia is one of the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which now
includes most of the states in Central Asia, China, India and Pakistan. The association never
made overt statements about their stance on the US's presence in the region; yet they've been
hinting that they don't approve of it, which is reasonable, as it is very likely that those
countries would all have different plans for the region, which might include some consideration
for human and economic development rather than constant and never-ending militarisation (of
course Pakistan would be problematic here, as the funds for the Afghan warlords get channeled
through Pakistan, which receives a lot of US money, so I don't know how they're managing this
issue).
Last but not least, I cannot logically believe that the Talibans, who've been coherent in
their message since the late 70's ("we will fight to the death until the invaders are defeated
and out of our national soil") would now need to be "convinced" by the Russians to defeat and
chase out the invader. This is just NOT believable at all. Afghanistan is called the Graveyard
of Empires for a reason, I would argue.
In any case I am pleased to see that at TAC you have been starting debunking the
Russia-narrative, as it is very problematic - most media just systematically misrepresents
Russia in order to justify aggressive military action (Europe, specifically Northern Europe, is
doing this literally CONSTANTLY, I'm so over it, really). The misrepresentation of Russia as an
aggressive wannabe-empire is a cornerstone of the pro-war narrative, so it is imperative to get
some actual realism into that.
As if the Afghan freedom fighters need additional incentive to eliminate the invaders? In
case Amerikans don't know, Afghans, except those on the US payroll, intensely despise Amerika
and its 'godless' ways. Amerikans forces have been sadistic, bombing Afghan weddings, funerals,
etc.
Even if the Russians are providing bounties to the Afghans, to take out the invaders, don't
the Amerikans remember the 80s when Washington (rightfully) supported the mujahedin with funds,
arms, Stinger missiles, etc.? Again, the US is on shaky ground because of the neocons.
Afghanistan is known through the ages to be the graveyard of empires. They have done it on
their own shedding blood, sweat, and tears. Also, the Afghan resistance have been principled
about Amerikans getting out before making deals.
What is the best way to debunk a conspiracy theory? Call it a conspiracy theory, a label
which in and of itself implies disbelief. The only problem with that is there have been many
actual conspiracies both historically and currently and many of them are not in the least
theoretical in nature. Conspiracies of several kinds brought about American participation in
both world wars. And however one feels about President Donald Trump, it must be conceded that
he has been the victim of a number of conspiracies, first to deny him the GOP nomination, then
to insure that he be defeated in the presidential election, and subsequently to completely
delegitimize his presidency.
Prior to Trump there have been numerous conspiracy "theories," many of which have been quite
plausible. The "suicide" of Defense Secretary James Forrestal comes to mind, followed by the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, which has been credibly credited to both Cuba and Israel. And
then there is 9/11, perhaps the greatest conspiracy theory of all. Israel clearly knew it was
coming, witness the Five Dancing Shlomos cavorting and filming themselves in New Jersey as the
twin towers went down. Also the Saudis might have played a role in funding and even directing
the alleged hijackers. And we have also had the conspiracy by the neocons to fabricate
information about Iraq's WMDs and the ongoing conspiracy by the same players to depict Iran as
a threat to the United States.
Given the multiple crises currently being experienced in the United States it is perhaps
inevitable that speculation about conspiracies is at its highest level ever. To the average
American it is incomprehensible how the country has become so screwed up because the political
and economic elite is fundamentally incompetent, so the search for a scapegoat must go on.
There are a number of conspiracy theories about the coronavirus currently making the rounds.
Those libertarians and contrarians who choose to believe that the virus is actually a flu being
exploited to strip them of their liberties are convinced that many in the government and media
have conspired to sell what is essentially a fraud. One such snake oil salesman persists in
using an analogy, that since more Americans are killed in automobile accidents than by the
coronavirus it would be more appropriate to ban cars than to require the wearing of face
masks.
Another theory making the rounds accuses Microsoft multi-billionaire Bill Gates of trying to
take over the world's healthcare system through the introduction of a vaccine to control the
coronavirus, which he presumably created in the first place. The fallacy in many of the virus
"conspiracies" that relate to a totalitarian regime or a crazy billionaire using a faux disease
to generate fear so as to gain control of the citizenry is that it gives far too much credit to
any government's or individual's ability to pull off a fraud of that magnitude. It would
require people a whole lot smarter than the tag team of Trump-Pompeo or even Gates to convince
the world and thousands of doctors and scientists that they should lock down entire countries
over something completely phony.
Other coronavirus theories include that the virus was developed in the U.S., was exported to
China by a traitorous American scientist, weaponized in Wuhan and then unleashed on the West as
part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and democracy. That would mean that we are
already at war with China, or at least we should be. Then there is the largely accepted theory
that the virus was created in Wuhan and escaped from the lab. Since that time Beijing has been
engaging in a cover-up, which is the conspiracy. It is a theme favored by the White House,
which has not yet decided what to do about it beyond assigning funny "Yellow Peril" names to
the disease so everyone in MAGA hats will have something to chuckle about leading up to the
November election.
But all kidding aside, there are some conspiracy theories that are more worth considering
than others. One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations
that he controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States. The
allegations against Soros are admittedly thin on evidence, but conspiracy mongers would point
out that that is the mark of a really well-planned conspiracy, similar to what the 89 year-old
Hungarian Jewish billionaire has been engaging in for a long time. The current round of claims
about Open Society and Soros have generated as many as 500,000 tweets a day as well as nearly
70,000 Facebook posts per month, mostly from political conservatives.
The allegations tend to fall into two broad
categories . First, that Soros hires protester/thugs and transports them to demonstrations
where they are supplied with bricks and incendiaries to turn the gatherings into riots. Second,
that Open Society is funding and otherwise enabling the destabilizing flow of illegal
immigrants into the United States.
Soros and his supporters, many of whom are Jewish because they think they see anti-Semitism
in the attacks on the Hungarian, claim to support democratization and free trade worldwide. He
is, in effect, one of the world's leading globalists. Soros claims to be a "force for good" as
the cliché goes, but is it completely credible that his $32 billion foundation does not
operate behind the scenes to influence developments in ways that are certainly not
democratic?
Indeed, Soros accumulated his vast fortune through vulture capitalism. He made over $1
billion in 1992 by selling short $10 billion in British pounds sterling, leading to the media
dubbing him "the man who broke the bank of England." He has been accused of similar currency
manipulation in both Europe and Asia. In 1999, New York Times economist Paul Krugman wrote of
him that "Nobody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that
these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency
crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit."
Far from a passive bystander giving helpful advice to democracy groups, Soros was heavily
involved with the restructuring of former communist regimes in eastern Europe and had a hand in
the so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014,
both of which were supported by the U.S. government and were intended to threaten Russia's
regional security.
Soros particularly hates President Vladimir Putin and Russia. He revealed that he is far
from a benevolent figure fighting for justice in his March Financial Times op-ed (behind
a pay wall) entitled "Europe Must Stand With Turkey Over Putin's War Crimes in Syria."
The op-ed is full of errors of fact and is basically a call for aggression against a Russia
that he describes as engaged in bombing schools and hospitals. It starts with, "Since the
beginning of its intervention in Syria in September 2015, Russia has not only sought to keep in
place its most faithful Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It has also wanted to
regain the regional and global influence that it lost since the fall of the Soviet Union."
First of all, Russia did not "intervene" in Syria. It was invited there by the country's
legitimate government to provide assistance against various groups, some of which were linked
to al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that were seeking to overthrow President al-Assad.
And apart from Soros, few actual experts on Russia would claim that it is seeking to
recreate the "influence" of the Soviet Union. Moscow does not have the resources to do so and
has evinced no desire to pursue the sort of global agenda that was characteristic of the Soviet
state.
There then follows a complete flight into hyperbole with: "Vladimir Putin has sought to use
the turmoil in the Middle East to erase international norms and advances in international
humanitarian law made since the second world war. In fact, creating the humanitarian disaster
that has turned almost 6 million Syrians into refugees has not been a byproduct of the Russian
president's strategy in Syria. It has been one of his central goals." Note that none of Soros's
assertions are supported by fact.
The Soros op-ed also included a bit of reminiscence, describing how, "In 2014, I urged
Europe to wake up to the threat that Russia was posing to its strategic interests." The op-ed
reveals Soros as neither conciliatory nor "diplomatic," a clear sign that he picks his enemies
based on ideological considerations that also drive his choices on how to frame his ventures.
Given all of that, why is it unimaginable that George Soros is engaged in a conspiracy, that he
is clandestinely behind at least some of the mayhem of Antifa and Black Lives Matter as well as
the flood of illegal immigration that have together perhaps fatally destabilized the United
States?
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations that he
controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States.
Instead of fairly distributing the wealth created by globalisation, Soros argued,
capitalism's "winners" failed to "compensate the losers", which led to a drastic increase
in domestic inequality – and anger.
I know it is just a "conspiracy theory" that people like George Schwartz aka George
(((Soros))) are funding these riots, but if this "conspiracy theory" were indeed true, why
aren't Soros and his (((cohorts))) at least under investigation for treason and murder
charges.
I am not a populist. But the contention (s) you are referring to are no really the
argument -- not by content.
The argument is that the suppose winners were and continue unfairly leverage the economic
system with the help f government to avoid the consequences of their miscalculations,
sometimes innocent, often careless and sometimes deliberate machinations.
That is quite a different argument than the winners should share more --
And as much as a capitalist as I am am -- I admit that there are goings on which violate
the rules of capitalism as well as common decency.
I didn't know that Soros could be so explicit about what he thinks about Putin and Syria
and involve himself so concretely with such questions, about which he probably doesn't know
very much (in the last times there have been very interesting articles about Syria, for
instance, see links below).
Even though, I don't think that he has anything to do with BLM and the protests. Riots and
revolts have happened other times without the coordination of people from outside. It
happened in 1381 in England. A few years ago it happened in the UK and earlier it happened in
the US, (I think when there was a blackout). Now it happened spontaneously in Stuttgart in
Germany (apparently).
Why shouldn't people complain about the militarisation of the police which uses brutal
methods to arrest people, a police which acts as if they had occupaied a country and had to
contain a population of enemies?
The most recent conspiracy was the one to oust Corbyn (the text is relatively short):
The killing of Jeremy Corbyn
Peter Oborne and David Hearst
" Wall Street Journal reported Friday that following the drone strike on Soleimani last
week, Trump told unspecified associates "he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani
from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the
Senate." http://www.commindreams.org
From any angle ,this will look like a conspiracy . But talking about it to portray the
existential crisis of USA politics ,a science of checks and balances, media responsibility
and the mechanism in place to make this sort of events to happen will be labeled as
conspiracy theory .
What is this.?
1 Impeachable offense
2 who will raise the issue? Media, Congress, Government agencies and activist judges .
They don't why ?
3 Who will investigate ? Dept of Justice.
Why they don't ?
4 would it be a conspiracy theory had Trump not shared the quid pro quo? Absolutely .
5 who is keeping quiet on the initiation of war illegal war to gain personal favor by
Trump and who is asking war on Iran ? Same gaggle of smiley faces – Bolton to Kristol
to Cotton to Lindsey to Pelosi to Biden to Sherman Engle , Schumer , Cheney( the cow ) , sage
Bush jr, Hillary and same gallery of rogues like NYT BBC CNN FOX MSNBC .
6 is there a possibility of a war initiated by Trump to make last ditch effort to win
election? Yes.
Bolton recently and , Deniis Ross have suggested to Obama to get out of bad poll number
before ,
Economist Rubiono has suggested before as was shared by zerohedge sometimes back.
7 Why does conspiracy theory keep on returning ? Because the first appearance is never
pushed back exposed and vilified by any body .
8 How do one evaluate and understand the fate accompli ? They don't . They shrug and move on
as they did after Suleimnai killing and wait for next disavowal of any "conspiracy theory
before confidently shrugging off the fait accompli.
9 What do you call them? Zombie human slaving away their lives
to harakiri.
I've often wondered about Soros. Was he a wealthy man before he "broke the Bank of
England"?
I've also wondered how it is possible that someone like Soros would have been allowed to
break the Bank of England. Was it just a set-up to provide him with plausible funds in order
to make him look legit?
He gets written up as some ideological billionaire who acts in accordance with his
conscience, but to me he looks like he's working for the ruling elites and the CIA.
Truly benevolent people (which I'm sure Soros is not) don't go around causing the chaos he
does.
There are many videos about Soros' purported influence on world events but very few books.
An interesting one is "Soros rompiendo España" by an internationalist and academic of
the Universidad Complutense of Madrid.
It badly needs an editor to make it less boring, but it traces and documents Soros
financing and tactics in the case of Cataluña. Basically creating NGOs to mobilize
civil society to a pitch, while providing content and tactics. Creating grass roots pressure
to change policy and break up one of Europes oldest nation-states. Such a network has the
advantage of flexibility, it can ebb and flow as required.
What is different from Europe's 19th Century instability? Well, that one's to ponder. But
it seems to me it is:
1) independent of Perfidious Albion or any central government. Unless it's Bilderberg, of
course.
2) requires no high level assassinations (king and prime minister of Italy, King and Queen of
Serbia, multiple Habsburgs, etc). Orban and Salvini are alive and well. Trump will lose, but
continue playing golf.
3) not about the self-determination of oppressed peoples, that is, not about nationhood.
There seem to be non-stop programming exercises to achieve and direct mass activism across
the West: immigration into Europe and US, Cataluña protests, green St Greta protest,
feminist protests, Covid confinement, BLM. These last four, in the past TWO years. The
generational divide cemented during Covid is something to watch, I've seen videos in French
and Spanish about the "life lessons" of the pandemic that seed this idea.
Some say that Soros is a Rothschild agent, just as Wilbur Ross is claimed to be by others,
and the Bank of England is most likely the Nathan Rothschild agent, therefore, a question
arises: how can an operative of an outfit be the buster of that very outfit? It's like saying
a pizza parlor owned by the mafia was cleaned out of pies by one of its very own goons.
"... These failures have not been merely "policy mistakes" but have had profound consequences for our country, both in terms of blood unnecessarily wasted and trillions of dollars irretrievably lost. The very last thing we should do is defend a failed status quo and subvert new thinking. McMaster does both in his essay. ..."
"... We had won all that was militarily winnable on the ground in Afghanistan by the summer of 2002 and we should have withdrawn. Instead, we have refused to accept reality for eighteen additional years and we have lost thousands of American service members and trillions of American tax dollars to finance permanent failure. ..."
"... our interests are far better served by being an exemplar to the world rather than trying to force it to behave a certain way. ..."
"... The time has come to admit our foreign policy theories of the past two decades have utterly failed in their objective. We have not been made safer because of them and the price continually imposed on our service members is unnecessary and unacceptably high. ..."
In February 1991 I fought as a green 2 nd Lieutenant under then-Captain H.R.
McMaster, who would go on to win combat fame in 2005 Iraq and as Trump's National Security
Advisor. I watched McMaster provide exceptional leadership of our unit prior to war and watched
him perform brilliantly under fire during combat. It gives me no pleasure, therefore, to note
that his most recent work in Foreign Affairs has to be one of the most flawed analyses
I've ever seen.
McMaster's essay, " The
Retrenchment Syndrome ," is an attempted take-down of a growing number of experts who argue
American foreign policy has become addicted to the employment of military power. I, and other
likeminded advocates, argue this military-first foreign policy does not increase America's
security, but perversely undercuts it.
We advocate a foreign policy that elevates diplomacy, promotes the maintenance of a powerful
military that can defend America globally, and seeks to expand U.S. economic opportunity
abroad. This perspective takes the world as it is, soberly assesses America's policy successes
and failures of the past decades, and recommends sane policies going forward that have the best
chance to achieve outcomes beneficial to our country.
Adopting this new foreign policy mentality, however, requires an honest recognition that our
existing approach -- especially since 9/11 -- has at times been catastrophically bad for
America. The status quo has to be jettisoned for us to turn failure into success.
These failures have not been merely "policy mistakes" but have had profound consequences for
our country, both in terms of blood unnecessarily wasted and trillions of dollars irretrievably
lost. The very last thing we should do is defend a failed status quo and subvert new thinking.
McMaster does both in his essay.
McMaster grievously mischaracterizes the positions of those who advocate for a sane,
rational foreign policy. He tries to pin a pejorative moniker on restraint-oriented viewpoints
via the term "retrenchment syndrome."
Advocates for a restrained foreign policy, he says, "subscribe to the romantic view that
restraint abroad is almost always an unmitigated good." McMaster claims Obama's 2011
intervention in Libya failed not because it destabilized the country but because Washington
didn't "shape Libya's political environment in the wake of Qaddafi's demise." And he claims
Trump's desire to withdraw from Afghanistan "will allow the Taliban, al Qaeda, and various
other jihadi terrorists to claim victory."
In other words, the only policy option is to keep doing what has manifestly failed
for the past two decades. Just do it harder, faster, and deeper.
But the reality of the situation is rather different.
We had won all that was militarily winnable on the ground in Afghanistan by the summer of
2002 and we should have withdrawn. Instead, we have refused to accept reality for eighteen
additional years and we have lost thousands of American service members and trillions of
American tax dollars to finance permanent failure.
We should never have invaded Iraq in 2003. But once we realized the justification for the
war had been wrong, we should have rapidly withdrawn our combat troops and diplomatically
helped facilitate the establishment of an Iraqi-led state. Instead, we refused to acknowledge
our mistake, fought a pointless eight-year insurgency, and then instead of allowing Iraq to
solve its own problems when ISIS arose in 2014, unnecessarily went back to help Baghdad fight
its battles.
Likewise, the U.S. continues to fight or support never-ending combat actions in Syria,
Libya, Somalia, Niger, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and other lesser-known locations. There is no risk
to American national security in any of these locations that engaging in routine and perpetual
combat operations will solve.
Lastly, large portions of the American public -- and even greater percentages of service
members who have served in forever-wars -- are
against the continuation of these wars and do not believe they keep us safer. What would
make the country more secure, however, is adopting a realistic foreign policy that recognizes
the world as it truly is, acknowledges that the reason we maintain a world-class military is to
deter our enemies without having to fight, and recognizing that our interests are far better
served by being an exemplar to the world rather than trying to force it to behave a certain
way.
The time has come to admit our foreign policy theories of the past two decades have utterly
failed in their objective. We have not been made safer because of them and the price
continually imposed on our service members is unnecessary and unacceptably high. It is time to
abandon the status quo and adopt a new policy that is based on a realistic view of the world,
an honest recognition of our genuinely powerful military, and realize that there are better
ways to assure our security and prosperity.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the
U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him
@DanielLDavis1.
The organisers projected an image of the cover of the Russian Constitution against the
background of Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and the inscription "1993. It was yours " Then
there is an image of the Russian people and the message "2020. It will be ours!", followed by
a call to come to vote, was projected on the building of the US Embassy. The light projection
was organised by the art group "Re:Venge".
https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-russian-constitution-was-projected-onto-the-us-embassy-building-in-moscow/
Ha, I really like this one ! Would have loved to watch 'das dumme Gesicht' (something like
>>stupid face<< but stronger. like the Germans say) of the latest Trump's edition
of silly ambassadors, lol !!!
Just a note about Russia's vote. This falls under the heading of "Pragmatic": Russia's
Constitution now provides a guarantee that the minimum wage will not be lower than the basic
cost of living. I know millions within the Outlaw US Empire would greatly desire such an Act
to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity;" but such an Act would be 100% against the ethos of Neoliberalism and thus
unthinkable. Now we know why Moose and Squirrel are constantly barraged with "Bad Russia"
bologna. So yes, today's Barbarians are most certainly Neculturny and speak English.
A curiosity about Turkey during WWII was its decisive, albeit indirect, role in the Battle
of Stalingrad.
Turkey was neutral in WWII, but made it clear its allegiance was for sale. During the
early exploits by the Afrikakorps in North Africa, the Islamic nations of the region quickly
sided with the Nazis. By Stalingrad, Turkey was on the verge of being a Nazi ally, as it was
more or less clear they would be soon the lords of the Caucasus. Either way, unconditional
Turkish support for Germany was directly conditioned to a German absolute victory in
Southwestern USSR, in which Stalingrad was the biggest and most strategic metropolis.
It is suspected that Hitler's anxiety with taking Stalingrad had very much to do with
striking an alliance with Turkey, which was waiting to see to side with the winning side
(which is very typical of neutral sides). That may have been the main factor that impelled
Hitler to decide to keep the 6th Army inside the city - not Göring's alleged blunder, as
many Anglo-Saxon historians like to tell us.
The necessity of Turkey to destroy the USSR is very obvious, as it was needed to cut it
off from the Black Sea and consolidate the Caucasus.
--//--
@ snake
Yes, oil was one of the major factors in WWII (not WWI). But only in drawing the sides,
not in causing the war itself. At the end of the day, the USA calculated that it was better
to ally with the USSR to give a more comfortable victory against two oil starved empires
(Germany and Japan) than risk a proto-MAD, endless war of self-destruction by allying with
the Nazis and the Japanese against the USSR.
The bet paid off, as the USSR lost 35% of its GDP and one seventh of its population either
way, so it always had the upper hand in the Cold War, which it also won comfortably due to
that initial advantage.
"... Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is 'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak. ..."
VK, re: Russia's grip on Europe is gradually tightening from the U.K.'s
INDEPENDENT
It's behind a paywall but I read just enough to be curious as to how someone could
possibly justify a clickbait title like that.
I suspect that the rest of the article is just
going to recap Russia's alleged sins in order to fan hatred but how can someone objectively
say that Russia is tightening its grip on Europe?
FUCKUS banned Russia from the Olympics on a bogus state sponsored steroid scam, no
reinstatement on horizon.
FUCKUS kicked Russia out of the now G7 and imposed a trade embargo that destroyed a large
commercial relationship w/Germany.
What is the 'overwhelming' evidence that the Russians poisoned the Skripal's, Novichok can be
made by just about anyone.
Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia
has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is
'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
Interesting history Browder has. I suspect he has a history with Putin before Putin became
President , but its hard to find anything on a connection. Anyways lots of interesting
connections, meaningful or not, I cant say.
[Hide MORE]
1985 - bugged version of PROMIS was sold for Soviet government use, with the media mogul
Robert Maxwell as a conduit.
1990 - just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Browder found himself on assignment in
Poland for Boston Consulting Group. The government had begun privatizing state-owned
companies and selling their shares at ridiculously low valuations.
1991 - Anatoly Sobchak, a former law professor of Putin's at Leningrad State, became mayor
of Leningrad.* Sobchak hired Vladimir Putin, whom he had known when Putin worked at Leningrad
State. Putin was still on active reserve with the KGB.
Putin's tenure in Sobchak's office was so rife with scandal that it led to a host of
investigations into illegal assignment of licenses and contracts . Putin was head of the
Committee for Foreign Liaison; collaborated with criminal gangs in regulating gambling; a
money-laundering operation by the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company, where Kumarin
was involved and Putin served on the advisory board; Putin's role in providing a monopoly for
the Petersburg Fuel Company, then controlled by the Tambov criminal organization; and much,
much more -- virtually all of which was whitewashed. While he was in St. Petersburg in the
nineties, Putin signed many hundreds of contracts doling out funds to his cronies.
1991 - November 5, Robert Maxwell, allegedly drowned after falling off his yacht in the
Canary Islands near the northwest coast of Africa. Billions were missing from his pension
funds
Maxwell's investment bankers included Salomon Brothers. Eventually, the pension funds were
replenished with monies from investment banks Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs, as well as
the British government.
It was March 1991 when William Browder went to work for British billionaire Robert Maxwell
as his "investment manager". Just how deep into the investment decisions of Maxwell did
Browder participate as an investment manager?
1991 November 10, Maxwell's funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, the
resting place for the nation's most revered heroes. Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has
done more Israel than can today be said."
1992 - Interestingly, after Maxwell died, Bill Browder went to work for the Salomon
Brothers in the middle of their own scandal. Browder was put in charge of the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers. He was given 25 million to invest and used
it by paying cash for vouchers in Russian companies the government had issued to citizens ,
and used them to buy shared at public auction. In a short period he turned that into 125
million
The scandal at Salomon Brothers was the manipulation of the US Treasury auctions back
then.After that scandal where the government was threatening to shut down Salomon Brothers
who was the biggest bond dealer in the USA for manipulating markets, all of a sudden, people
from Goldman Sachs started taking posts in government.
1996-Browder left Salomon Brothers and with Edmond Safra founded Hermitage Capital
Management for the purpose of investing initial seed capital of $25 million in Russia during
the period of the mass privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union. Beny Steinmetz was
another of the original investors in Hermitage, the Israeli diamond billionaire.
Cyprus is a favorite place for Russian to launder money. Thats probably why Browder and
his accounting advisor Jamison Firestone chose it to launder Browder's Russian profits.
Browder from about 1997 to the mid-2000s used Cyprus shell companies to move money out of
Russia to cheat the country of multi-millions of dollars in taxes. He used the Russian shells
to invest in shares, including Gazprom shares that were illegal for foreigners to buy in
Russia, then moved the shares to Cyprus shells
1996 article entitled, "The Money Plane," published by New York Magazine detailed how the
"Russian mob gets a shipment of up to a billion dollars in fresh $100 bills," Edmond Safra's
bank, Republic National, was directly implicated.
Guess we know where Browder got the cash money to pay for the vouchers
1998 - If Salomon had not been merged with Travelers Group in 1997 (which owned retail
brokerage, Smith Barney), no doubt Salomon Brothers would have collapsed in the 1998
Long-Term Capital Management debacle created by one of their own – Salomons John
Meriwether.
Safra lost $1 billion in Russia during the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management crisis over
Russian bonds and investments which was why he put his bank, Republic National Bank, up for
sale to HSBC in 1999.
1999 - Following the Russian financial crisis of 1998, despite significant outflows from
the fund, Hermitage became a prominent shareholder in the Russian oil and gas. It was in 1999
when VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation (Russian:
ВСМПО-АВИСМА) – the
world's largest titanium producer - filed a RICO lawsuit against Browder and other Avisma
investors including Kenneth Dart, alleging they illegally siphoned company assets into
offshore accounts and then transferred the funds to U.S. accounts at Barclays.
Browder and his co-defendants settled with Avisma in 2000; they sold their Avisma shares
as part of the confidential settlement agreement.
1999 - Republican National Bank was owned by Safra . On May 11, HSBC, announced a $10.3
billion deal to purchase Edmond Safra's holdings including the Republic National Bank of New
York and Safra's shares in Bill Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital. The announcement came only
nine months after Russia's economy collapsed and Browder's clients, lost over $900 million.
It was also nine months after $4.8 billion in IMF funds was deposited in an undisclosed
account at Safra's bank and well before the public became aware that that same money was
dispersed and stolen through the Bank of New York, off-shore companies, and foreign financial
institutions.
HSBC then became Browders partner of the Heritage Fund . Browder's shell companies were
registered in Cyprus but owned by HSBC (Guernsey) as the trustee for his Hermitage Capital
Management.
Cypriot shells Glendora and Kone were part of his offshore network "owned" by an HSBC
Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. The real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. Assets (stocks
and money) went from Russia to Cyprus and then to parts unknown.
Republic International Trust, registered by Mossack Fonseca of Panama Papers fame and
listed on the Glendora document, was in the offshore network of Republic National Bank owner
Edmond Safra, an early investor who then held 51% of Hermitage Fund shares.
1999 December 3 - Safra was killed in suspicious fire that broke out in his Monte Carlo
home. Although some believe that Safra was killed by the Russian mafia, Lurie reported that a
Swiss prosecutor investigating the missing IMF money believed that Safra was killed "because
of his revelations to the FBI and the Swiss Prosecutor's Office investigating the
disappearance and laundering of $4.8 billion of the IMF stablilization loan." One of the more
interesting things to note here is that the prosecutor implied that Safra not only spoke with
the FBI about the missing IMF funds but with Swiss authorities as well.
Funny how Browders bosses/partners get killed
1999 - the bombings that killed nearly three hundred innocent Russians were likely the
product of a "false flag" operation that enabled Putin to consolidate power.
Putin promised to stop the plundering of the Russian state by rich oligarchs. But very few
Russians knew that Putin had been a primary actor in the same kind of activity in St.
Petersburg. And as for cleaning up corruption, one of Putin's first acts as president was to
pardon Boris Yeltsin, thereby guaranteeing immunity from prosecution to the outgoing
president.-
Putin recruited two oligarchs who were among his closest confidants, Roman Abramovich and
Lev Leviev, to undertake the highly unlikely mission of creating a new religious organization
called the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Rabbi Berel
Lazar, a leader in the Hasidic movement called Chabad-Lubavitch.
Founded in the late eighteenth century, the tiny, Brooklyn-based Chabad-Lubavitcher
movement is a fundamentalist Hasidic sect centered on the teaching of the late Rabbi Menachem
Schneerson, who is sometimes referred to as a messiah -- moshiach -- a savior and liberator
of the Jewish people. It is antiabortion, views homosexuality as a perversion, and often
aligns itself politically with other fundamentalist groups on the right.
Its biggest donors included Leviev, an Israeli billionaire who was an Uzbek native and was
known as the "King of Diamonds" thanks to his success in the diamond trade, and Charles
Kushner, an American real estate developer who was later jailed for illegal campaign
contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Kushner is also the father of Jared
Kushner, who married Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and later became a senior adviser to
President Trump. Leviev's friendship with Lazar dates back to 1992 and, according to Haaretz,
made Leviev "the most influential, most active and most connected person in the Jewish
community of Russia and made Lazar the country's chief rabbi."
Roman Abramovich, controlled the trading arm of one of Russia's largest oil companies
through an Isle of Man company that had figured in the Bank of New York affair. Mr.
Abramovich ran the Siberian oil giant Sibneft, which sold its oil through a company called
Runicom.
His name emerged after speculation that Swiss investigators were looking into the role of
Runicom as part of the widening investigation into the laundering of up to $15 billion of
Russian money through American banks. Runicom is owned by at least two offshore companies set
up by the Valmet Group, a financial services concern partly owned by Menatep, a failed
Russian bank that used the Bank of New York."
2001- Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) collapses. Tenants include the Department of
Defense, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
2005 - Steinmetz of Browders Heritage Fund teamed up with another diamond magnate, Putins
buddy Lev Leviev, to purchase the top ten floors of Israel's Diamond Tower which also houses
the Israeli Diamond Exchange. Haaretz.com reported that "the buyers intend to build a
connector from the 10 floors – the top 10 floors of the building – to the diamond
exchange itself in order to benefit from the security regime of the other offices within the
exchange." And benefit they did.
According to one website reporting on a Channel 10 (Israel) news story, from 2005 –
2011, an "underground" bank was set up to provide "loans to firms using money taken from
other companies while pretending it was legally buying and selling diamonds." The bank
apparently washed over $100 million in illicit funds over the course of six years and both
Steinmetz and Leviev were directly implicated as "customers" of the bank but Neither of them
were charged in the case.
Then there's HSBC's involvement in the diamond industry and Leviev's ties not only to arms
dealer Arcadi Gaydamak via Africa-Israeli Investments but Roman Abramovich and Kushner
2007 - Browders Hermitage Capital Management, was raided by Russian interior ministry
officers, who confiscated stamps and documents. These were then used to file bogus tax
returns to the Russian Treasury, which were paid out to bank accounts controlled by Klyuev
and his associates, according to the U.S. government.
Browder claimed Organized crime carried out the tax refund fraud against the Russian
Treasury under which criminals used collusive lawsuits to fake damages and get refunds of
company taxes. The tax refund fraud using Browder's companies netted $230 million.
2008 - HSBC (Guersey) director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the tax refund fraud in
July on behalf of Hermitage (after Starova's complaints) .
Maginitsky was arrested for being the accountant (not a lawyer) of Browder's tax evasion
schemes.
2008 - A lawsuit alleged Bayrock's projected profits were "to be laundered, untaxed
through a sham Delaware entity" to the FL Group, Iceland's largest private investment fund,
the first major firm to collapse in 2008 when Iceland's financial bubble burst, and a favored
financial instrument for loans to Russia-connected oligarchs who were, court papers claim, in
favor with Vladimir Putin. According to Bloomberg, Eva Joly, who assisted Iceland's special
prosecutor in the investigation of the financial collapse, said, "There was a huge amount of
money that came into these banks that wasn't entirely explained by central bank lending. Only
Mafia-like groups fill a gap like that."
Another significant Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal,
Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the commodities trader who was
tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's gang in
Brighton Beach.
In addition to being wired into the Kremlin, Sapir's son-in-law, Rotem Rosen, was a
supporter of Chabad along with Sater, Sapir, and others at Bayrock, and, as a result, was
part of an extraordinarily powerful channel between Trump and Putin. After all, the ascent of
Chabad in Russia had been part of Putin's plan to replace older Jewish institutions in Russia
with corresponding organizations that were loyal to him.
The biggest contributor to Chabad in the world was Leviev, the billionaire "King of
Diamonds" who had a direct line to Rabbi Berel Lazar, aka "Putin's rabbi," to Donald Trump,
and to Putin himself dating back to the Russian leader's early days in St. Petersburg.
Indeed, one of the biggest contributors to Chabad of Port Washington, Long Island, was
Bayrock founder Tevfik Arif, a Kazakh-born Turk with a Muslim name who was not Jewish, but
nonetheless won entry into its Chai Circle as a top donor.
2013-The Hermitage Fund, an HSBC-backed vehicle that invested in Russia and became
embroiled in a diplomatic war with the Kremlin over the death of one of its accountants,
closes down..
2014, Vekselberg's Renova Group became a partner with Wilbur Ross in the takeover of the
Bank of Cyprus, which had held billions in deposits from wealthy Russians.
Back in early 90's Trump found himself in financial trouble when his three casinos in
Atlantic City were under foreclosure threat from lenders. He was bailed-out by senior
managing director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Wilbur Ross, who Trump would later appoint
as Secretary of Commerce. Ross, who is known as the "King of Bankruptcy," specializes in
leveraged buyouts of distressed businesses.
Along with Blackstones Carl Icahn, Ross convinced bondholders to strike a deal with Trump
that allowed Trump to keep control of the casinos.
By the mid-1990s, Ross was a prominent figure in New York Democratic Party politics and
had caught the attention President Bill Clinton who appointed him to lead the U.S.-Russia
Investment Fund.
2015 - Donald Trump, after emerging from a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies,
and $ 4 billion in debt, had risen from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its
alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said
Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor
2015 - Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times
building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of Israeli-Russian oligarch Leviev's company,
Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.
Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which
has also been linked to Russian money laundering,
Jared and Ivanka were also close to another of Putins oligarchs, Roman Abramovich and his
wife, Dasha Zhukova.
2015-While Wilbur Ross served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, the bank's
Russia-based businesses were sold to a Russian banker and consultant, Artem Avetisyan, who
had ties to both the Russian president and Russia's largest bank, Sberbank. At the time,
Sberbank was under US and EU sanctions following Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Avetisyan had earlier been selected by Putin to head a new business branch of the Russian
president's strategic initiative agency, which was tasked with improving business and
government ties.
Avetisyan's business partner, Oleg Gref, is the son of Herman Gref, Sberbank's chief
executive officer, and their consultancy has served as a "partner" to Sberbank, according to
their website. Ross had described the Russian businesses – including 120 bank branches
in Russia – as being worth "hundreds of millions of euros" in 2014 but they were sold
with other assets to Avetisyan for €7m (£6m).
Ross resigned from the Bank of Cyprus board after he was confirmed as commerce secretary
in 2017
2018 - Cyprus suspended cooperation with Russia, which had been seeking assistance from
the government in Moscow's alleged case of tax evasion against Hermitage Capital Founder Bill
Browder.
William "Bill" Browder has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past
decade. A few months back, Der Spiegel published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky
but the mainstream media completely ignored this report and so aside from Germany few people
are aware of Browder's background and the Magnitsky issue which resulted in sanctions on
Russia.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies
by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow
investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For a time, it was the
largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management was rated as extremely
successful after earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December
2007.
During the corrupt Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US $25 million, Browder
amassed a fortune . Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to
2006 his Hermitage firm eventually grew to $4.5 billion .
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities he portrayed
himself as an anti-corruption activist and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act,
which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However, an examination of
Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveals contradictions with his
statements to the public and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking
corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian
companies to adopt Western-style governance, it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized
companies he was targeting for takeover.
Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in
a company he would resort to lawsuits against this company through shell companies he
controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To
prevent its collapse the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it,
causing its stock market to rise -- with the result that Browder's profits would rise
exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant
Magnitsky acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft
and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5%
instead of the 35% that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign
companies and citizens from purchasing equities in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this
and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in 2008.
Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and
charged by Russian prosecutors with two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in
conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's shell
companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009 Magnitsky died in pre-trial
detention because
of a failure by prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest
and death were a targeted act of revenge by Russian authorities against a heroic
anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was
challenged by the European Court of Human Rights who in its ruling on August 27, 2019
concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable
suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence." And as such "The Russians had good
reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal
proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that
prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable
activities, Browder had been refused entry to Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly
his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities,
accusing them of corruption and violation of human rights. The death of his accountant and
auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch an
international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption
whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky is anything but.
Despite Brower's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic
documents
and testimonies show that Magnitsky
died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a
gallstone condition. It was negligence typical at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a
premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high level functionaries in
the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past ten years Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by
prison guards. Without any verifiable evidence
he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18
minutes. This was never corroborated by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even
denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to
discredit and vilify Russia and its government and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying
beliefs and assumptions are being seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an
American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I
revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei
Magnitsky, William Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he
was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos
were taken the next day.
Later in her report she states:
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen
U.S. media – both allegedly progressive and mainstream -- have refused to publish this
information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was
beaten to death with rubber batons. It's this narrative that has attracted the attention of the
US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists. To further refute his
account, a 2011 analysis by the
Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder
found no evidence he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian
documents. They were compiled immediately after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009.
Recent investigative research has revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The
first document D309 states that shortly before Magnitsky's death: "Handcuffs were used in
connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the
handcuffs were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a
forensic review states that while in the prison hospital "Magnitsky exhibited behavior
diagnosed as "acute psychosis" by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr.
Magnitsky to be restrained with handcuffs."
The second document D310 is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the
preceding sentence. The sentence in D309 has the phrase "special means were" is
changed in D310 to " a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no
sense whatsoever, given the title and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistences,
including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310 was copied from D309 and
that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical
reports to have been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of
knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document forms a major basis for Browder's
claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a
baton attack, combined with forensic photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show
no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long assertions
that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains
mistakes and inconsistencies that distort the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's
death.
Despite Magnitsky's death the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty
of corruption in a posthumous trial. Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate
alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include the accountant
Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case
against Magnitsky was closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign
insisting that his departure from Russia resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However,
the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is that in 2003 a
Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition,
his illegal purchases of shares in
Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies were reportedly valued at another $30
million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went
after Magnitsky, the accountant who carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the USA Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished
his tale by asserting that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one
of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case got more involved, he presented a
convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be
presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007 three shell companies that had once been owned by
Browder were used to claim a $232 million tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses.
Browder has stated that the
companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation organized by a convicted
fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence however that
Magnitsky and Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this
firm were a large number of shell companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some
in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan, owned by Americans, did
the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for
Firestone Duncan and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was
interviewed in 2017 by Lucy Komisar, an investigative journalist, who was doing research on
Browder's operations in Russia. In the ensuing report on this , Komisar states:
"According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure
that Russian investigators would later say was used for tax evasion and illegal share
purchases by Hermitage. . .
the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal share purchase schemes.
"He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were "owned" by
Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which, in turn, were "owned" by an HSBC Private Bank
Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. He said the
structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along
the way. Profits could get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and
HSBC.
"Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy
Gazprom shares in the local market, which was restricted for foreign investors.'"
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the
offices of Hermitage and Firestone Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers
and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support Russian charges of
tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a
statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder stated that Russian interior ministry
officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies of
the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest
Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the
purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He
had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have the qualifications to do so. In fact in 2006 when
questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 he claimed Magnitsky was his lawyer, but in 2015 in his
testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative , in December 2012 he presented documents to the New York District
Attorney alleging that a Russian company Prevezon had "benefitted from part of the $230 million
dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number of luxury apartments
in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed
money-laundering charges against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based
lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel , Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court
so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to
accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge in the Prevezon
case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later
while in court and under oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally
evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning with the following
exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law
degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible U.S. investigator admitted
during questioning that his findings were based exclusively on statements and documents from
Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his people managed
to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that
launched the court case, Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when
questioned under oath he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact, to almost every question put
forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
The case finally ended in May 2017 when the two sides reached a settlement. Denis Katsyv,
the company's sole shareholder, on a related matter agreed to pay nearly six million dollars to
the US government, but would not have to admit any wrongdoing. Also the settlement contained an
explicit mention that neither Katsyv nor his company Prevezon had anything to do with the
Magnitsky case. Afterwards, one of Katsyv's, lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya, exclaimed: "For
the first time, the U.S. recognized that the Russians were in the right!"
A major exposé of the Browder-Russia story is presented in a film that came out in
June 2016 The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the well-known independent filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov .
Reference to this film will be made later but to provide a summary of the Browder tax evasion
case some critical information can be obtained from
a report by Eric Zuesse , an investigative historian, who managed to get a private viewing
of the film by the film's Production Manager.
In the film Nekrasov proceeds to unravel Browder's story, which was designed to conceal his
own corporate responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted
story collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the
fraud who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his
medical condition. The film cleverly allows William Browder to self-destruct under the weight
of his own lies and the contradictions in his story-telling at various times.
Following the raid by tax officials on the Moscow Hermitage office on June 2, 2007, nothing
further on these matters was reported until April 9, 2008 when Ms Rimma Starlova, the
figurehead director of the three supposedly stolen Browder shell companies, filed a criminal
complaint with the Russian Interior Ministry in Kazan accusing representatives of Browder
companies of the theft of state funds, i.e., $232 million in a tax-rebate fraud. Although
Hermitage was aware of this report they kept quiet about it because they claimed it as a false
accusation against themselves.
On September 23, 2008, there was a news report about a theft of USD 232 million from the
Russian state treasury, and the police probe into it. On October 7, 2008, Magnitsky was
questioned by tax investigators about the $232 million fraud because he was the accountant for
Browder's companies.
The central issue was that during September of 2007 three of Browder's shell companies had
changed owners and that afterwards fraud against Russian treasury had been conducted by the new
owners of these companies.
According to Magnitsky the way that ownership changed was through powers of attorney. This
is a matter that Browder never mentioned. The Nekrasov film shows a document: "Purchase
agreement based on this power of attorney, Gasanov represents Glendora Holdings Ltd."
Glendora Holdings is another shell company owned by Browder. This shows that Gasanov, the
middleman, had the power of attorney connecting the new nominees to the real beneficiaries.
However, Gasanov could not be questioned on whose orders he was doing this because shortly
afterwards, he mysteriously died. No one proved that it was murder, but if that death was a
coincidence, it wasn't the only one.
During September 2007 the three Hermitage shell companies, Rilend, Parfenion and Mahaon,
were re-registered by Gasanov to a company called Pluton that was registered in Kazan, and
owned by Viktor Markelov, a Russian citizen with a criminal record. Markelov through a series
of sham arbitration judgments conducted fake lawsuits that demanded damages for alleged
contract violations. Once the damages were paid, in December 2007 the companies filed for tax
refunds that came to $232 million. These were taxes that had been paid by these companies in
2006.
On February 5, 2008 the Investigative Committee of the Russian General Prosecutor's Office
opened a criminal case to investigate the fraud committed by Markelov and other
individuals.
Markelov had hired a Moscow lawyer, Andrey Pavlov, to conduct these complex operations.
Afterwards Pavlov was questioned by Russian authorities and revealed what had happened.
Markelov was convicted and
sentenced to five years for the scam . At his trial Markelov testified that he was not in
possession of the $232 million tax refund and that he did not know the identity of the client
who would benefit from the refund scheme. And till this day no one knows! However, Russian tax
authorities suspect it is William Browder.
At his trial, Markelov testified that one of the people he worked with to secure the
fraudulent tax refund was Sergei Leonidovich. Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich
Magnitsky. Also when questioned by the police, Markelov named Browder's associates Khairetdinov
and Kleiner as people involved in the company's re-registration.
So this provides evidence that Magnitsky and Browder's other officials were involved in the
re-registration scheme – which Browder later called theft. In his film Nekrasov states
that Browder's team had set things up to look as if outsiders -- not Browder's team -- had
transferred the assets.
According to Nekrasov's film documentation, Russian courts have established that it was the
representatives of the Hermitage investment fund who had themselves voluntarily re-registered
the Makhaon, Parfenion and Rilend companies in the name of other individuals, a fact that Mr
Browder is seeking to conceal by shifting the blame, without any foundation, onto the law
enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.
Indeed there is cause to be skeptical of the Browder narrative, and that the fraud was in
fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court has
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December 2013 that Browder had
deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. On the basis of this he was
sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.
In the meantime, over all these years, Browder has maintained and convinced the public at
large that the $232 million fraud against the Russian treasury had been perpetrated by
Magnitsky's interrogators and Russian police. With respect to the "theft" of his three
companies (or "vehicles as he refers to them) on September 16, 2008
he stated on his Hermitage website : "The theft of the vehicles was only possible using
the vehicles' original corporate documents seized by the Moscow Interior Ministry in its raid
on Hermitage's law firm in Moscow on 4 June 2007."
As such, Browder is accusing Russian tax authorities and police for conducting this entire
fraudulent operation.
In his film Nekrasov says that the Browder version is: "Yes, the crime took place [$232
million fraud against the public treasury but, according to Browder, actually against Browder's
firm], but somebody else did it -- the police did it."
In this convoluted tale, it should be recalled that the fraud against the Russian treasury
had first been reported to the police by Rimma Starlova on April 9, 2008. This had been
recorded on the Hermitage website. In preparing the material for his film, Nekrasov noted
that
"In March 2009, Starlova's report disappeared from Hermitage's website. . . . This is the
same time that Magnitsky started to be treated as an analyst . . . who discovered the $232
million fraud. Thus the Magnitsky-the-whistleblower story was born, almost a year after the
matter had been reported to the police."
Nekrasov's film also undermines the basis of Browder's case that Magnitsky had been killed
by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov, but this is
questionable since documents show Magnitsky had not accused anyone. As Nekrasov states in the
film: "The problem is, he [Magnitsky] made no accusations. In that testimony, its record
contains no accusations. Mr. Magnitsky did not actually testify against the two officers
[Karpov and Kuznetsov]." So this factual evidence should destroy Browder's accusations.
It should be noted Magnitsky's original interview with authorities was as a suspect, not a
whistleblower. Also contradicting Browder's claims, Nekrasov notes that Magnitsky does not even
mention the names of the police officers in a key statement to authorities.
In his film Nekrasov includes an interview that he had with Browder regarding the issues
about Magnitsky. Nekrasov confronts Browder with the core contradictions of his story.
Incensed, Browder rises up and threatens the filmmaker:
" Anybody who says that Sergei Magnitsky didn't expose the crime before he was arrested
is just trying to whitewash the Russian Government. Are you trying to say that Pavel Karpov is
innocent? I'd really be careful about your going out and saying that Magnitsky wasn't a
whistleblower. That's not going to do well for your credibility." Browder then walks off in
a huff.
Nekrasov claims to be especially struck that the basis of Browder's case -- that Magnitsky
had been killed by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov
-- is a lie because there is documentary evidence that Magnitsky had not accused anyone.
Because of Browder's accusations, Nekrasov interviewed Pavel Karpov, the police officer who
Browder accused of being involved in Magnitsky's alleged murder, despite the fact that Karpov
was not on duty the day Magnitsky died.
Karpov presents Nekrasov with documents that Browder's case was built on. These original
documents are actually fundamentally different from the way Browder had described them. This
documentary evidence further exposes Browder's story for what it is.
Nekrasov asks Karpov why Browder wants to demonize him. Karpov explains that he had pursued
Browder in 2004 for tax evasion, so that seems to be the reason why Browder smears him. And
then Karpov says, "Having made billions here, Browder forgot to tell how he did it. So it
suits him to pose as a victim. He is wanted here, but Interpol is not looking for him."
Afterwards in 2013, Karpov had tried to sue Browder for libel in a London court, but was not
able to on the basis of procedural grounds since he was a resident of Russia and not the UK.
However at the conclusion of the case, set out in his Judgment the presiding judge,
Justice Simon, made some interesting comments.
"The causal link which one would expect from such a serious charge is wholly lacking; and
nothing is said about torture or murder. In my view these are inadequate particulars to
justify the charge that the Claimant was a primary or secondary party to Sergei Magnitsky's
torture and murder, and that he would continue to commit or 'cause' murder, as pleaded in
§60 of the Defence.
The Defendants have not come close to pleading facts which, if proved, would justify the
sting of the libel."
In other words – in plain English – in the judge's view, Karpov was not in any
sense party to Magnitsky's death, and Browder's claim that he was is not valid.
On the basis of the evidence that has been presented, it is undeniable that Browder's case
appears to be a total misrepresentation, not only of Magnitsky's statements, but of just about
everything else that's important in the case .
On a separate matter, on April 15, 2015 in a New York court
case involving the US government and a Russian company, Previzon Holdings, Bill Browder had
been ordered by a judge to give a deposition to Prevezon's lawyers.
Throughout this deposition, Browder (now under oath) contradicted virtually every aspect of
his Magnitsky narrative and stated "I don't recall" when pressed about key portions of his
narrative that he had previously repeated unabashedly in his testimonies to Congress and
interviews with Western media. Browder "remembered nothing" and could not even deny asking
Magnitsky to take responsibility for his (Browder's) crimes.
As a further example of Browder's dishonesty, in one of his publications, he shows a photo
of an alleged employee of Browder's law firm, Firestone Duncan, named "Victor Poryugin" with
vicious facial wounds from allegedly being tortured and beaten by police. However, the person
shown was never with Browder's firm. Instead, this is a photo of "an American human rights
campaigner beaten up during a street protest in 1961." It was Jim Zwerg, civil-rights
demonstrator, during the 1960s, in the American South. Nekrasov was appalled and found it
almost unimaginable that Browder would switch photos like that to demonize Russia and its
police.
Browder
was arrested by the Spanish policein June 2018. Even though Russia has on six occasions
requested Browder's arrest through Interpol for tax fraud, the Spanish national police
determined that Browder had been detained in error because the international warrant was no
longer valid and released him.
A further matter that reflects on his character, William Browder, the American-born
co-founder of Hermitage Capital Management is now a British citizen. The US taxes offshore
earnings, but the UK does not. Highly likely because of this, in 1998 he gave up his American
citizenship and became a British citizen and thereby has avoided paying US taxes on foreign
investments. Nevertheless, he still has his family home in Princeton, NJ and also
owns a $11 million dollar vacation home in Aspen, Colorado.
To put this in political context, Browder's narrative served a strong geopolitical purpose
to demonize Russia at the dawn of the New Cold War. As such, Browder played a major role in
this. In fact, the late celebrated American journalist Robert
Parry thought that Browder single-handedly
deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War.
Browder's campaign was so effective that in December 2012 he exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia, and as a result the US Congress passed a bipartisan bill, the
Magnitsky Act, which was then signed by President Obama. U.S. Senators Ben Cardin and John
McCain were instrumental in pushing through the Magnitsky Act, based on Browder's
presentations.
However, key parts of the argument that passed into law in this act have been shown to be
based on fraud and fabrication of 'evidence.' This bill
blacklisted Russian officials who were accused of being involved in human-rights
abuses.
"A problem with the Magnitsky Act is that there is no due process. The targets are not
told the evidence against them, they cannot challenge accusations or evidence in a court of
law in order to get off the list. This "human rights law" violates the rule of law. There is
an International Court with judges and lawyers to deal with human rights violators, but the
US has not ratified its jurisdiction. Because it does not want to be subject to the rules it
applies to others."
In 2017, Congress passed the Global Magnitsky Act, which enables the U.S. to impose
sanctions against Russia for human rights violations worldwide.
In a move that history will show to be ill-advised, on October 18, 2017 Canada's Parliament
and Senate
unanimously approved Bill 226, a 'Magnitsky Act.' It mimics the US counterpart and targets
Russia for further economic sanctions. Russia
immediately denounced Canada's actions as being counter-productive, pointless and
reprehensible. Actually an act of this type had been opposed by Stéphane Dion while he
was Canada's minister of foreign affairs because he viewed it as a needless provocation against
Russia.
Dion also stated that adoption of a 'Magnitsky Act' would hurt the interests of Canadian
businesses dealing with Russia and would thwart Canada's attempt's to normalize relations with
Russia. However, Dion was replaced by Chrystia Freeland who immediately pushed this through.
This is not surprising considering her well-documented Nazi family
background and who is persona non grata in Russia.
A version of the Magnitsky Act was enacted in the UK and the Baltic republics in 1917.
In early 2020 a proposal to enact a version of the Magnitsky Act was presented to the
Australian parliament and it is still under consideration. There has been considerable
opposition to it including a
detailed report by their Citizens Party, which exposes the full extent of Browder's fraud
and chicanery.
The investigation into Browder's business activities in Russia is still an ongoing
endeavour. On October 24, 2017 the
Russian Prosecutor
General , Yuri Chaika, requested the US Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch a probe
into alleged tax evasion by Bill Browder, who in 2013 had already been sentenced in absentia to
9 years in prison in Russia for a similar crime.
Browder at that time was still being tried in Russia for suspected large-scale money
laundering, also in absentia. Chaika added that Russian law enforcement possesses information
that over $1 billion was illegally transferred from the country into structures
connected with Bill Browder.
The Prosecutor General also asked Sessions to reconsider the Magnitsky Act. As he put
it,
" from our standpoint, the act was adopted for no actual reason, while it was lobbied by
people who had committed crimes in Russia. In our view, there are grounds to claim that this
law lacks real foundation and that its passing was prompted by criminals' actions."
It's not known if Sessions ever responded to the Russian Prosecutor General. In any event,
President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions on November 7, 2018. As such it's evident
that Russia's concerns about Browder's dishonest activities are stymied.
Extensive reference has already been made to the film that came out in June 2016 The
Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the independent filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov . When Nekrasov started the film
he had fully believed Browder's story but as he delved into what really happened, to his
surprise, he discovered that the case documents and other incontrovertible facts revealed
Browder to be a fraud and a liar. The ensuing film presents a powerful deconstruction of the
Magnitsky myth, but because of Browder's political connections and threats of lawsuits, the
film has been
blacklisted in the entire "free world." So much for the "free world's" freedom of the press
and media. This film is not available on YouTube.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/oJsWUlkjN6Gf/
The documentary was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016,
but at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians
cancelled the showing.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed.
Despite the frantic attempts by Browder's lawyers to block this documentary film from being
shown anywhere, Washington's Newseum, to its credit, had a one-time showing on June 13, 2016,
including a question-and-answer session with Andrei Nekrasov, moderated by journalist Seymour
Hersh. Except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been
essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth
to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.
Nekrasov's powerful deconstruction of the Magnitsky myth – and the film's subsequent
blacklisting throughout the "free world" – recall other instances in which the West's
propaganda lines don't stand up to scrutiny, so censorship and ad hominem attacks become the
weapons of choice to defend " perception
management ."
Other than the New
York Times that had a lukewarm review , the mainstream media condemned the film and its
showing. As such, with the exception of that one audience, the public in the USA, Canada and
Europe has been shielded from the documentary's discoveries. The censorship of this film has
made it a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we
used to call "the other side of the story."
Andrei Nekrasov is still prepared to go to court to defend the findings of his film, but
Bill Browder has refused to do this and simply keeps maligning the film and Mr. Nekrasov.
Recent Developments
Although for almost the past ten years Browder's self-serving story had been accepted almost
worldwide and served to help vilify Russia, in the past few months there has been an awakening
to the true state of affairs about Browder.
The first such article"The Case of Sergei Magnitsky: Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S.
Sanctions" written by Benjamin Bidder, a German journalist, appeared on November 26, 2019
in Der Spiegel. At the outset Bidder states:
"Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story suggest he may not have
been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him to be. Did the
perfidious conspiracy to murder Magnitsky ever really take place? Or is Browder a charlatan
whose story the West was too eager to believe? The certainty surrounding the Magnitsky affair
becomes muddled in the documents, particularly the clear division between good and evil. The
Russian authorities' take is questionable, but so is everyone else's -- including Bill
Browder's.
But with the Magnitsky sanctions, it could be that the activist Browder used a noble cause
to manipulate Western governments."
In summation, the article raises serious questions about many aspects of Browder's account.
It concluded that his narrative was riddled with lies and said Western nations have fallen for
a "convenient" story made up by a "fraudster. "
The report provoked Browder's fury, and he swiftly filed a complaint against Der
Spiegel with the German Press Council as well as a complaint to the editor of Der
Spiegel .
On December 17, 2019 Der Spiegel responded : " Why DER SPIEGEL Stands Behind Its Magnitsky
Reporting." In a lengthy detailed response the journal rejects all aspects of Browder's
complaint. They point out the inconsistencies in Browder's version of events and demonstrate
that he is unable to present sufficient proof for his claims. They state: We believe his
complaint has no basis and would like to review why we have considerable doubts about Browder's
story and why we felt it necessary to present those doubts publicly."
Their report is highly enlightening and will have long-term consequences. It is one of the
best refutations of Browder's falsified accounts that led to the Magnitsky Act. It exposes
Browder as a fraud and his Magnitsky story as a fake. Despite all this, this exposé was
ignored in the mainstream media so most people are unaware of these revelations.
A good review of it is presented by Lucy Komisar in her article The Der Spiegel
exposé of Bill Browder, December 6, 2019.
The German Press Council rejected Browder's complaint against Der Spiegel in January
2020 but Browder did not disclose this so it became known only in early May.
Lucy Komisar reported this on May 12 and the main points of the Council's rejection are
presented in her account. Browder had complained that the article had serious factual errors.
The Press Council stated that Browder's position lacks proof and there could be no objection to
Der Spiegel's examination of events leading to Magnitsky's death. All other Browder
objections were rejected as well. In summation the Council stated: "Overall, we could not find
a violation of journalistic principles."
But the action of the press council has not been reported in the Canadian, U.S. or UK media.
Nor was the November Der Spiegel report.
The German Press Council ruling follows a December 2019 Danish Press Board ruling against
another Browder complaint over an article by a Danish financial news outlet, Finans.dk, on
his tax evasion and invented Magnitsky story. Significantly, both the Danish and German cases
involve mainstream media, which usually toe the US-UK-NATO strategic line against Russia, which
Browder's story serves. And these press complaint rulings follow a September 2019
European Court of Human Rights ruling that there was credible evidence that Magnitsky and
Browder were engaged in a conspiracy to commit tax fraud and that Magnitsky was rightfully
charged.
In summation, for ten years or more, no one in the West ever seriously challenged Bill
Browder's account of what happened to his "lawyer" Sergei Magnitsky and his stories of
corruption and malfeasance in Russia. This is what allowed him to get such influence that the
Magnitsky Act was passed, despite Russia's attempts to clarify matters.
But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most
influential journals Der Spiegel published an investigative bombshell picking apart
Browder's story about his auditor Sergei Magnitsky's death. Browder immediately lashed out at
Der Spiegel , accusing it of "misrepresenting the facts." However, his outraged
objections backfired and resulted in a further even more damaging Der Spiegel article
and a rebuke from the German Press Council.
At long last, thanks to Der Spiegel , its investigative reports have effectively
rejected and discredited Browder's claim that Magnitsky was a courageous whistleblower who
exposed corruption in Russia and was mercilessly killed by authorities out of revenge.
Despite this important and significant course of events, because of its imbedded
Russophobia, the mainstream media have completely ignored the Der Spiegel exposé
and almost nowhere has this been reported. To some extent this is because Browder has used his
fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively
silencing many critics. Hence aside from people in Germany, this has been a non-event and the
Browder hoax still prevails. Given this, it is important for us to publicize this revelation as
best we can.
John, great article but we know that what you call "large-scale privatizations in Russia "
was a large scale robbery. Even Magnitsky's mother stated that Browder is a fraud. Mr.
Nekrasov whose film has been banned in many countries due to Browder's legal challenges has a
reputation as a Putin critic -- After interviewing Mr. Browder in 2010 Nekrasov says he set
out to make a "Magnitsky the hero" film. But as filming proceeded he "began to have doubts".
More accurate would be that he smelled a rat. John, I have read many of your articles you
never disappoint with your research and evidence.
Outstanding article sir. I remember when Browder popped up in the news a couple of years ago
and made TV appearances on all three big networks in the same day. I was astonished that this
lowlife wielded such influence in America.
Indeed – and very likely more than one! It should be obvious that the ease with
which Browder (a complete nonentity) was able to get away with what he got away with in
Russia and remain a virtually untouchable, protected free man to this day, in spite of the
very significant evidence against him, would very much seem to indicate that he, much like
Paul Bremer later in Iraq, was a tool of higher powers.
Excellent article. There is a misperception that these pathological liars are believed, since
their critics are silenced. It has been my experience that that is not the case. The
pathological liars are not believed. They just keep lying, sabotaging, fining, legal system
stalking, shouting down their oppenents, black listing those who doubt or know that they are
lying as conspiracy theorists. I've been witnessing this for far to long. It is obviously not
limited to the Magnitsky Act. This country is really nothing more than a sick joke at this
point. These individuals do not behave like people. They behave like mercury poisoned
monsters. Maybe they are. There is no logical excuse for this insanity. However, if they were
mercury poisoned monsters, they would not all always have the same insane delusions. They are
extremely corrupt sadistic terrorist criminal psychopaths that have destroyed America and the
rest of the world too.
They are not The Resistance, they are The Persistence! Something has to be done about
them. Freedom of the press does not give people the freedom to deliberately lie. You may
doubt that, however, slander, libel, and defamation of charcter suits will prove you to be
wrong, in addition to providing false information that endangers human life and national
security, in the case of a non person like covid that is being used to deprive people of
every liberty and rights that exists, including life. They are terrorists. They cannot claim
to be news journalists or investigative reporters if they simply say whatever their
advertisers or the government tells them to say. If they are unable to get to the bottom of
the story, when so many in the alternative media are, then they are either unqualified to do
their jobs, or are simply full of shit.
I really believe that the primary intention of covid and the response to it is to get
people to voluntarily give up cell phones, particularly since 5-G is so hazardous. That way,
the industries will never have to admit any wrong doing about the health hazards related to
cell phones and Wi-Fi.That
is what I believe. Also, you can be damn sure that the government and corporations do not
like the fact that they can be embarrassed by people that they cannot prevent from
embarrassing them without being accused of human rights abuses like vault7 technology.
"Did they expect us to treat them with any respect?!" – Pink Floyd Fletcher Memorial
Home For Incurable Tyants
@Vuki I had at one time a copy of a book titled "The murder of Bill Browder" by an
Eastern European journalist which I have, unfortunately, misplaced. As well as being an
exposè of the nefarious Mr Browder it also exposes far more serious wrongdoing against
him. This book has vanished from the Google search engine (I wonder why?) so if anyone can
tell me where to get a copy i would really value it
While most American's were distracted by the emerging World Wide Web, our elite were
raping Russia. I'll say it again, America's "elite" raped Russia. In internet time twenty
five years past puts you in prehistoric times. This is critical history that most of us
missed, or more accurately wasn't available -- to the majority of us.
This was the Clinton era -- with just that you know this story can't be good. With Slick
Willie's taste for skanks in a period where there is a story of beautiful impoverished young
Russian women (teens likely) forming a line for one of our "elite" who was peeling off
Benjamins for blowjobs in a club frequented by their foreign "advisors." Yep, I'm sure this
was of no interest to William Jefferson Blythe III.
Harvard University was given a significant role in this "helping" of Russia (pardon the
pun), due to the prestige of this institution, long-gone and unbeknownst to Russian elite,
but hey they weren't "connected" yet. Geez, sorry about your luck. The Harvard you got was
the Harvard we've been getting also, a race privileged hot bed for educating global "rapists"
(or was that Brandeis University I'm thinking of?). Six of one
William Browder is a highly educated Jew (not certain about either) who's grandfather was
Earl Browder, the former General Secretary of the CPUSA (that's the "Communist Party of the
United States of America" for those of you who didn't know we had one). Bill Browder crowed
about the irony in his grandfather being an activist for communism here in the U.S., while HE
was an activist for capitalism in Russia! No, he was doing to Russia what Jews did to Russia
when they hijacked the real Russian's revolution -- fucking them.
Billy Browder's book, "Red Notice," seems at first heartfelt story from a genuine American
do-gooder. Oops! I missed the "A true story " tip-off. It's a self engrandizing fairy tale of
a rapist's plea of innocence because "she didn't say NO."
There is MUCH more to this most interesting, world impacting historical event, that I
believe is the most understated and least understood of the twentieth century, but that said,
who fucked up? Certainly Yeltsin with his alcohol addled brain (likely rooted for by Russian
Jews, who are the MOST notorious criminals world-wide) in trusting and believing America
would help Russia! More significantly I feel America did, big-time, for acting so damn
un-American. Unfortunately the America I'm dreaming of is as long-gone as Harvard and now,
like Harvard has a Zionist occupied governance (if you didn't know what "ZOG" stood for).
Come to think of it, we're acting much like Israel. God save America!
I can tell you one person who did not, Vladimir Ilyich Putin. Yeltsin threw Russia's doors
open to the west and Putin slammed them shut. You can quibble about how he got and keeps his
office, or how he enriched himself through the process, but he had a job to do and he did it
well -- he saved Russia from what the west was going to continue doing to it. You may not
agree with his ideology, but he is the most formidable leader the world has. I pray he leaves
Russia and Russians in a better place than we're headed.
So, here we are today, where Trump is currently in the position to decide whether Russia
should be invited to the next G-whatever summit:
I say we're damn lucky it isn't Putin deciding whether to include Trump and the U.S., as
some day it very well may be.
P.S. This is a rant of mine burning a long time for a window. Thank you John Ryan. Thank
you Billy Browder. Most of all, Thank YOU Mr. Unz!
UNZ has provided a platform for authors, journalists and "knowers" from all over the
world. All converging on the same theme -- there is a "they" and there is a plan. This
seeming runaway train has awakened plain folks with uncommon sense and giants of intellect
alike. Kudos, Ron Unz.
" The western Governments are easily moved or manipulated" and have been Gang Banged –
time and time again by the corrupt mafia corporations, Zionists inc., and a dozen other
international gangs that are in charge of things – today. Not to mention the corrupt,
treasonist nationals that work for the Western Governments. Browder's Hermitage scam just
shows how easily the US Gov and others are bought and paid for – that's why the true
Magnitsky lie , has to be covered up , from the public. PS – notice all the tax money
Browder skimmed off the US – very visible to anyone that can smell a Rat.
I became aware of the Browder case when known controlled asset, Brandon Martinez, used his
claims as a refutation of Putin which he seemed unbelievably obsessed about.
As I perused you-tube for videos on Browder, I saw that he was welcomed into all approved
western media to make his case with the questioners rarely going into the material to dispute
his claims. I determined at that time that Browder was part of a deep state campaign to
demonize Russia under Putin leadership.
It surprises me not to hear no MSM News organization will print these latest findings since
in 2012 I realized the free world and press are anything but free and lie as much or more
than the most demonized communist outlets.
Not mentioned in the article that I recall is the fact that Browder's dad was the head of the
Communist party in the USA before and during WWII which should be enough by itself for a
legitimate news outlet to scrutinize with great vigor any claims made by the man but then we
know WWII was really a war against any country willing to exercise goyim rule independent of
Jewish advisors and that the US was on the side of Jewish power in that war as much as all
the other wars it has engaged in.
(Its interesting that my spell check keeps telling me that there is no such word as "goyem")
"But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most
influential journals "
Der Spiegel is known as a craven Atlanticist rag. Somebody high up – possibly as a
snub to the Trump admin – must have provided ass cover for it to be upheld.
Useful summary of browder's scam. The man managered to wield a great amount of influence in
american/uk media and government, yet is only a minor player by western oligarch standards.
For that he must have substantial backing. By whom?
Well he definitely is closely defended by these sources:
British Jewish businessman who challenged Putin is put on Interpol wanted list
Bill Browder is a thief, a typical representative of a flock of Western vultures that landed
in 1990s Russia to steal state assets. When his thievery was curbed by Putin, he got angry
and vengeful, like a scorned lover. He manufactured and spread lies to whip up an anti-Putin
campaign in the West. His "narrative" was eagerly supported by the neocons and other scum, as
it was in line with their "narrative". Naturally, the first things about Browder any honest
investigator or journalist would unearth were lies and fraud. Just as naturally, the scum and
scum-controlled Western MSM keep spreading lies supporting their "narrative", and ignoring
numerous facts that contradict it.
There is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey
Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"
There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the
biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia
– because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.
Ben Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but
having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to
protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now
that's the power of corruption!
There is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey
Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"
There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the
biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia
– because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.
Ben Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but
having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to
protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now
that's the power of corruption!
@Saggy Many thanks for posting this. Halfway through the film I began to suspect that
Browder had Magnitsky killed: "Dead Men Tell No Tales", and an accountant can tell very
important tales for the procecution. I had no idea that several guys connected with Browder
shell companies convienently turned up dead. Looks like the "cleanup" scenes in Scorcese's
"Casino".
Putin has to stay within neoliberal framework because this is a the dominant social framework in existence. But he is determine
to "tame the markets" when necessary which is definitely anathema to neoliberals. So he is kind of mixture of neoliberal and traditional
New Deal style statist. At the same time he definitely deviates from neoliberalism in some major areas, such as labor market and monopolies.
In fact, much of his economic and social policies have a decidedly neoliberal bent. As Tony Wood argues, Putin has reformed
and consolidated the Yeltsin system. There is not as much of a break with Yeltsin as liberals -- or apparently leftists looking
for any hope -- want to believe.
You have no clue. This is a typical left-wing "Infantile Disorder" point of view based on zero understanding of Russia and neoliberalism
as a social system. Not that I am a big specialist, but your level of ignorance and arrogance is really stunning.
Neoliberalism as a social system means internal colonization of population by financial oligarchy and resulting decline of
the standard of living for lower 80% due to the redistribution of wealth up. It also means subservience to international financial
capital and debt slavery for vassal countries (the group to which Russia in views of Washington belongs) .
The classic example is Ukraine where 80% of population are now live on the edge of abject poverty. Russia, although with great
difficulties, follows a different path. This is indisputable.
The neoliberal resolution which happened under alcoholic Yeltsin was stopped or at least drastically slowed down by Putin.
Some issues were even reversed. For example, the USA interference via NGO ended. Direct interference of the USA into internal
affairs of Russia ( Russia was a USA colony under Yeltsin ) also diminished, although was not completely eliminated (and this
is impossible in view of the USA position in the the hegemon of the neoliberal "International" and owner of the world reserve
currency.)
Those attempts to restore the sovereignty of Russia were clearly anti-neoliberal acts of Putin. After all the slogan of neoliberalism
is "financial oligarchy of all countries unite" -- kind of perversion of Trotskyism (or. more correctly, "Trotskyism for the rich.")
In general, Yeltsin's model of neoliberalism in Russia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semibankirschina )
experienced serious setbacks under Putin's rule, although some of his measures were distinctly neoliberal.
Recent "Medvedev's" pension reform is one (which was partially a necessity due to the state of Russian finances at the time;
although the form that was chosen -- in your face, without some type of carrot -- was really mediocre, like almost anything coming
from Medvedev ); some botched attempt in privatization of electrical networks with Chubais at the helm is another -- later stopped,
etc.
But in reality, considerable if not dominant political power now belongs to corporations, whether you want it or not. And that
creates strong neoliberal fifth column within the country. That's a huge problem for Putin. The alternative is dictatorship which
usually does not end well. So there is not much space for maneuvering anyway. You need to play the anti-neoliberal game very skillfully
as you always have weak cards in hands, the point which people like VK never understand.
BTW, unlike classic neoliberals, Putin is a consistent proponent of indexation of income of lower strata of the population
to inflation, which he even put in the constitution. Unlike Putin, classic neoliberals preach false narrative that "the rising
tide lifts all boats."
All-in-all whenever possible, Putin often behaves more like a New Deal Capitalism adherent, than like a neoliberal. He sincerely
is trying to provide a decent standard of living for lower 80% of the population. He preserves a large share of state capital
in strategically important companies. Some of them are still state-owned (anathema for any neoliberal.)
But he operates in conditions where neoliberalism is the dominant system and when Russia is under constant, unrelenting pressure,
and he needs to play by the rules.
Like any talented politician, he found some issues were he can safely deviate from neoliberal consensus without too hard sanctions.
In other matters, he needs to give up to survive.
"... The purpose of McMaster's essay is to discredit "retrenchers" -- that's his term for anyone advocating restraint as an alternative to the madcap militarism that has characterized U.S. policy in recent decades. Substituting retrenchment for restraint is a bit like referring to conservatives as fascists or liberals as pinks : It reveals a preference for labeling rather than serious engagement. In short, it's a not very subtle smear, as indeed is the phrase madcap militarism. But, hey, I'm only playing by his rules. ..."
"... The militarization of American statecraft that followed the end of the Cold War produced results that were bad for the United States and bad for the world. If McMaster can't figure that out, then he's the one who is behind the times. ..."
"... While Hillary was very clear on her drive against Russia, Trump promised the opposite, so many people had hopes for something on that. Nevertheless, he also promised to go against China and JPCOA, which many people forgot or thought not likely. But lo and behold, with Trump we ended up having the worst of both worlds ..."
"... just because of Trump's rhetoric against military adventurism, I would have voted for him. I would have been wrong, so now I am now extremely weary of any promises on this direction, but still hoped for Tulsi... ..."
H.R. McMaster looks to be one of those old soldiers with an aversion to following Douglas
MacArthur's advice to "just fade away."
The retired army three-star general who served an abbreviated term as national security
adviser has a memoir due out in September. Perhaps in anticipation of its publication, he has
now contributed a big think-piece to the new issue of Foreign Affairs. The essay is
unlikely to help sell the book.
The purpose of McMaster's essay is to discredit "retrenchers" -- that's his term for anyone
advocating restraint as an alternative to the madcap militarism that has characterized U.S.
policy in recent decades. Substituting retrenchment for restraint is a bit like
referring to conservatives as fascists or liberals as pinks : It
reveals a preference for labeling rather than serious engagement. In short, it's a not very
subtle smear, as indeed is the phrase madcap militarism. But, hey, I'm only playing by his
rules.
Yet if not madcap militarism, what term or phrase accurately describes post-9/11 U.S.
policy? McMaster never says. It's among the many matters that he passes over in silence. As a
result, his essay amounts to little more than a dodge, carefully designed to ignore the void
between what assertive "American global leadership" was supposed to accomplish back when we
fancied ourselves the sole superpower and what actually ensued.
Here's what McMaster dislikes about restraint: It is based on "emotions" and a "romantic
view" of the world rather than reason and analysis. It is synonymous with "disengagement" --
McMaster uses the terms interchangeably. "Retrenchers ignore the fact that the risks and costs
of inaction are sometimes higher than those of engagement," which, of course, is not a fact,
but an assertion dear to the hearts of interventionists. Retrenchers assume that the "vast
oceans" separating the United States "from the rest of the world" will suffice to "keep
Americans safe." They also believe that "an overly powerful United States is the principal
cause of the world's problems." Perhaps worst of all, "retrenchers are out of step with history
and way behind the times."
Forgive me for saying so, but there is a Trumpian quality to this line of argument: broad
claims supported by virtually no substantiating evidence. Just as President Trump is adamant in
refusing to fess up to mistakes in responding to Covid-19 -- "We've made every decision
correctly" -- so too McMaster avoids reckoning with what actually happened when the
never-retrench crowd was calling the shots in Washington and set out after 9/11 to transform
the Greater Middle East.
What gives the game away is McMaster's apparent aversion to numbers. This is an essay devoid
of stats. McMaster acknowledges the "visceral feelings of war weariness" felt by more than a
few Americans. Yet he refrains from exploring the source of such feelings. So he does not
mention casualties -- the number of Americans killed or wounded in our post-9/11
misadventures. He does not discuss how much those wars have cost , which, of course,
spares him from considering how the trillions expended in Afghanistan and Iraq might have been
better invested at home. He does not even reflect on the duration of those wars, which
by itself suffices to reveal the epic failure of recent U.S. military policy. Instead, McMaster
mocks what he calls the "new mantra" of "ending endless wars."
Well, if not endless, our recent wars have certainly dragged on for far longer than the
proponents of those wars expected. Given the hundreds of billions funneled to the Pentagon each
year -- another data point that McMaster chooses to overlook -- shouldn't Americans expect more
positive outcomes? And, of course, we are still looking for the general who will make good on
the oft-repeated promise of victory.
What is McMaster's alternative to restraint? Anyone looking for the outlines of a new grand
strategy in step with history and keeping up with the times won't find it here. The best
McMaster can come up with is to suggest that policymakers embrace "strategic empathy: an
understanding of the ideology, emotions, and aspirations that drive and constrain other actors"
-- a bit of advice likely to find favor with just about anyone apart from President Trump
himself.
But strategic empathy is not a strategy; it's an attitude. By contrast, a policy of
principled restraint does provide the basis for an alternative strategy, one that implies
neither retrenchment nor disengagement. Indeed, restraint emphasizes engagement, albeit through
other than military means.
Unless I missed it, McMaster's essay contains not a single reference to diplomacy, a
revealing oversight. Let me amend that: A disregard for diplomacy may not be surprising in
someone with decades of schooling in the arts of madcap militarism.
The militarization of American statecraft that followed the end of the Cold War produced
results that were bad for the United States and bad for the world. If McMaster can't figure
that out, then he's the one who is behind the times. Here's the truth: Those who support the
principle of restraint believe in vigorous engagement, emphasizing diplomacy, trade, cultural
exchange, and the promotion of global norms, with war as a last resort. Whether such an
approach to policy is in or out of step with history, I leave for others to divine.
Andrew Bacevich, TAC's writer-at-large, is president of the Quincy Institute for
Responsible Statecraft.
Surveys show over and over that the Americans overwhelmingly share Dr. Bacevich's views.
There was even hope that Trump will reign on the US military adventurism.
The fact that all this continues unabated and that the general is given space in the Foreign
Affairs is in our face evidence of the glaring democratic deficit existent in the US, and that
in fact democracy is nonexistent being long ago fully replaced by a de facto Oligarchy.
Doesn't matter what Dr. Bachevich writes or says or does. Unless and until the internal
political issues in the US are not addressed, the world will suffer.
While Hillary was very clear on her drive against Russia, Trump promised the opposite, so
many people had hopes for something on that. Nevertheless, he also promised to go against China
and JPCOA, which many people forgot or thought not likely. But lo and behold, with Trump we
ended up having the worst of both worlds...
and the tragedy is that even if Biden is elected,
that direction will not be reversed, or not likely. While I cannot vote, just because of
Trump's rhetoric against military adventurism, I would have voted for him. I would have been
wrong, so now I am now extremely weary of any promises on this direction, but still hoped for
Tulsi...
As we noted earlier Tuesday, several pundits took the DNI and CIA statements as a clear
denial that there was anything significant or worthy of briefing the president on regarding
alleged "Russian bounties" -- meaning it was likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor
picked up either by US or British intelligence -- and subsequently leaked to the press to
revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of some level of "Trump-Putin collusion".
In short, when your 'unsubstantiated chatter' hit-piece loses steam, prop it up with a slain
Marine .
Looks like the same people who used to push records up the pop charts are now manipulating
the Amazon best sellers charts, though I wouldn't put this past Amazon themselves.
No one buys this garbage other than uni libraries.
scott157 , 2 minutes ago
Matt Taibbi hits ANOTHER grand slam!!!!! regarding robin diangelo, she should cease
scissoring and try a penis........it would spread sunshine all over her
place.......................
Michael Norton , 4 minutes ago
Someone should write a book called White Strength.
novictim , 4 minutes ago
And let us never forget the crackpot theory that only Blacks cannot be racist 'cuz P + P +
R -> (Prejudice + Power) = Racism.
This social theory defines blacks as being definitionally incapable of possessing power
over whites. Ya, that's not racist at all!
johnnyg , 5 minutes ago
Teaming up with Ruth Frankenberg to help attack "fellow whites"? Oy vey!
I wonder if it's "fragility" to need every university, multinational corp, media monopoly,
and celebrity constantly patting you on the *** and silencing any criticism of your constant
terrible behavior?
There is no reason for US elite act as is being suggested, because the cake they get the
lion's share of is growing and so even though inequality is growing, the economy is too and
the common people are getting slightly better off.
If a country were in the hands of a tiny minority and they were to act in such a way and
try steal all the wealth for themselves, then they would be overthrown by domestic enemies
like Somoza was.
Chagnon theorized that war, far from being the product of capitalist exploitation and
colonization was in fact the true "state of nature." He concluded that 1) "maximizing
political and personal security was the overwhelming driving force in human social and
cultural evolution," and 2) "warfare has been the most important single force shaping the
evolution of political society in our species."
Everything in the last five years is a symptom of the US reacting to being bested by
China.
I happen to think states that are even slightly nation-states have emergent qualities,
like a nest of social insects that react as though there is central direction though none
exists, and no state is closer to being alive than a democracy.
Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!
...They suffer from god-complexes, since they do not believe in God, they feel an obligation to act as God, and decide the fates
of over 7 billion people, who would obviously be better off if the PICs were sent to the Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants!
Asked an Honors History Class what they thought was the most important issue facing America.
In an earlier period, Patrick, a kid from Africa, responded, "our differences." In a later
period, a black female, in a plaintive voice, responded, "we are different."
Indeed. We are a world of people with many differences: different politics, different
religions, different cultures. Not just here; worldwide, humans are wrestling with this
question: How to live with our differences? Can we humans, after all our centuries, change
enough? Change enough to accept our differences?
The importance of these questions came to the fore with the recent onslaught of immigration
into Europe and has since played out in referenda/elections throughout Europe and the United
States. The pending further, and of greater scale, dislocations caused by global
warming/climate change and globalization, makes their answering imperative. Plus: What will
resulting cultures look like? At what point does an existing culture become more like that of
the immigrant? What is the tipping point? Can the center hold?
Over the past 20 years, really quite late, much of our nation has come to believe that
someone else's sexuality is really none of our business. We, as a nation, now accept lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender, LGBT, people as they are. Not ignore them, not tolerate them,
not demand that they change; but accept them as they are. Yet, there are still regions of
America, sectors of the population, where a majority of the people think that they know how
people should act, should think, that they have the right to demand that others change.
Really? Does anyone really have the right to tell anyone else that they must change? Be like
the rest of 'us'. That they must assimilate?
Time was, when most would have said that assimilation was the time-proven solution; that a
minority should adopt the culture of the majority -- with the culture of majority minimally
affected. The mechanism for this change went along the lines we have often seen narrated in
literature where: the immigrant parents clustered, were suspicious of others, and were subject
suspicion. They may have squabbled with those within the cluster of different ethnicity,
culture; even called each other names. But, their children played together, went to school
together, and along the way took on many of the ways of the majority. Their children might
marry someone of their own cultural group, or maybe someone from another; and some married
someone from the established majority. Voila, in a couple generations, the immigrant families
had assimilated; and the dominant culture had gained a few new dishes to enjoy, added a few new
words and phrases to their vocabulary. An immigrant minority assimilated.
What if a cultural minority doesn't want to assimilate? Feels that assimilation would mean
the loss of their culture? What if aspects of a minority's cultural beliefs are in direct
conflict with those of the majority? For example: Does a minority cultural group that believes
in female genital mutilation, FGM, have an inherent right to practice FGM in a society where
the majority strongly oppose the practice?
Even in an accepting society, there will be norms, limits, bounds. All well-functioning
societies have norms, limits, bounds, ; have common cultural norms that are the 'laws of the
land'; that supersede any and all other cultural customs. No cultural belief can ever supersede
the law of the land. Though both laws and beliefs are subjective, and both are derivative of
culture; they are not equal. Laws have precedence over beliefs. Everyone of a cultural minority
chooses whether to believe or not to believe; they do not get to choose which laws to obey. In
a multicultural society, some, maybe all, cultures will have to forego certain of their
practices. The cultural majority will have to accept certain practices and behaviors of the
cultural minority that are different from their own. Minorities cultures can maintain most of
their cultural identity and still fit into a larger multicultural society. The cultural
majority accepts most of a minority's behavior. In exchange for this acceptance, the minority
cultural group must agree to, at all times abide by, accept, the 'laws of the land'.
If any minority cultural group were to be granted immunity to the laws of the land, others
will petition for the same; society would soon descend into chaos and failure.
Doesn't the first amendment give us the right to not have religious beliefs imposed on
us? It does. But when homegrown religious groups try to impose their religious beliefs upon us,
they often try to base their legal arguments on that they disdain most, science.
For the last five years, the American media has been filled with scurrilous articles
demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin has been accused of every crime imaginable, from shooting down airplanes, to
assassinating opponents, to invading neighboring countries, to stealing money to manipulating
the U.S. president and helping to rig the 2016 election.
Few of the accusations directed against Putin have ever been substantiated and the quality
of journalism has been at the level of "yellow journalism."
In a desperate attempt to sustain their political careers, centrist Democrats like Joe Biden
and Hillary Clinton accused their adversaries of being Russian agents – again without
proof.
And even the progressive hero Bernie Sanders – himself a victim of red-baiting –
has engaged in Russia bashing and unsubstantiated accusations for which he offers no proof.
Mettan is a Swiss journalist and member of parliament who learned about the corruption of
the media business when his reporting on the world
anticommunist league rankled his newspapers' shareholders, and when he realized that he was
serving as a paid stenographer for the Bosnian Islamist leader Alija Izetbegovic in the early
1990s.
Mettan defines Russophobia as the promotion of negative stereotypes about Russia that
associate the country with despotism, treachery, expansion, oppression and other negative
character traits. In his view, it is "not linked to specific historical events" but "exists
first in the head of the one who looks, not in the victim's alleged behavior or
characteristics."
Like anti-semitism, Mettan writes, "Russophobia is a way of turning specific pseudo-facts
into essential one-dimensional values, barbarity, despotism, and expansionism in the Russian
case in order to justify stigmatization and ostracism."
The origins of Russophobic discourse date back to a schism in the Church during the Middle
Ages when Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Roman empire and modified the Christian
liturgy to introduce reforms execrated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine
empire.
Mettan writes that "the Europe of Charlemagne and of the year 1000 was in need of a foil in
the East to rebuild herself, just as the Europe of the 2000s needs Russia to consolidate her
union."
Before the schism, European rulers had no negative opinions of Russia. When Capetian King
Henri I found himself a widower, he turned towards the prestigious Kiev kingdom two thousand
miles away and married Vladimir's granddaughter, Princess Ann.
A main goal of the new liturgy adopted by Charlemagne was to undermine any Byzantine
influence in Italy and Western Europe.
Over the next century, the schism evolved from a religious into a political one.
The Pope and the top Roman administration made documents disappear and truncated others in
order to blame the Easterners.
Byzantium and Russia were in turn rebuked for their "caesaropapism," or "Oriental style
despotism," which could be contrasted which the supposedly enlightened, democratic governing
system in the West.
Russia was particularly hated because it had defied efforts of Western European countries to
submit to their authority and impose Catholicism.
In the 1760s, French diplomats working with a variety of Ukrainian, Hungarian and Polish
political figures produced a forged testament of Peter 1 ["The Great"] purporting to reveal
Russia's 'grand design' to conquer most of Europe.
This document was still taken seriously by governments during the Napoleanic wars; and as
late as the Cold War, President Harry Truman found it helpful in explaining Stalin.
In Britain, the Whigs, who represented the liberal bourgeois opposition to the Tory
government and its program of free-trade imperialism, were the most virulent Russophobes, much
like today's Democrats in the United States.
The British media also enflamed public opinion by taking hysterical positions against Russia
– often on the eve of major military expeditions.
The London Times during the 1820s Greek Independence war editorialized that no "sane
person" could "look with satisfaction at the immense and rapid overgrowth of Russian power."
The same thing was being written in The New York Times in the 2010s.
A great example of the Orientalist stereotype was Bram Stoker's novel Dracula , whose
main character was modeled after Russian ruler, Ivan the Terrible. As if no English ruler in
history was cruel either.
The Nazis took Russo-phobic discourse to new heights during the 1930s and 1940s, combining
it with a virulent anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.
A survey of German high school texts in the 1960s found little change in the image of
Russia. The Russians were still depicted as "primitive, simple, very violent, cruel, mean,
inhuman, cupid and very stubborn."
The same stereotypes were displayed in many Hollywood films during the Cold War, where KGB
figures were particularly maligned.
No wonder that when a former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, took power, people went insane.
Russophobia in the United States has been advanced most insidiously by the nation's foreign
policy elite who have envisioned themselves as grand chess-masters seeking to checkmate their
Russian adversary in order to control the Eurasian heartland.
This view is little different than European colonial strategists who had learned of the
importance of molding public opinion through disinformation campaigns that depicted the Russian
bear as a menace to Western civilization.
Guy Mettan has written a thought-provoking book that provides badly needed historical
context for the anti-Russian delirium gripping our society.
Breaking the taboo on Russophobia is of vital importance in laying the groundwork for a more
peaceful world order and genuinely progressive movement in the United States. Unfortunately,
recent developments don't inspire much confidence that history will be transcended. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: JEREMY KUZMAROV
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
program to arm and finance the mujahideen (jihadists) in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior
to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan. The mujahideen were also supported by Britain's MI6, who conducted
separate covert actions. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups
that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than
other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the
Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet
intervention.[1]
Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever
undertaken.[2] Funding officially began with $695,000 in 1979,[3][4] was increased dramatically
to $20–$30 million per year in 1980, and rose to $630 million per year in 1987,[1][5][6]
described as the "biggest bequest to any Third World insurgency."[7] Funding continued (albeit
reduced) after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal as the mujahideen continued to battle the forces of
President Mohammad Najibullah's army during the Afghan Civil War (1989–1992).[8]
"... What Catan established is that, at the time his helicopter was blown out of the sky, Curtis, lawyer both to the Menatep oligarchs and Berezovsky, had started 'singing sweetly' to what was the the National Criminal Intelligence Service. ..."
"... And what he was telling them about the activities of Khodorkovsky and his associates would have been 'music to the ears' of Putin and his associates. ..."
"... Ironically, she inadvertently demonstrates a crucial element in this story – the extent to which not only British, but American, intelligence/foreign policy/law enforcement agencies 'got into bed' with the members of the 'semibankirshchina' of the 'Nineties who refused to accept the terms Putin offered. ..."
"... A prescient early analysis of Putin, which brings out that the notion that his KGB background meant that he wanted conflict with the West is BS, is the 2002 paper 'Vladimir Putin & Russia's Special Services.' ..."
"... It was published by the 'Conflict Studies Research Centre', which was what the old 'Soviet Studies Research Centre', which did 'open source' analysis for the British military at Sandhurst became, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
From the description of the evolution the thinking of Christopher Steele by his co-conspirators Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch:
'When the Soviet Union finally collapsed, the suffocating surveillance of Western diplomats and suspected intelligence officers
suddenly ceased – which for a brief moment seemed like a possible harbinger of a new, less authoritarian future for Russia. But
the surveillance started again within days. The intrusive tails and petty harassment were indistinguishable from Soviet practices
and have continued to this day. To Steele, that told him all he needed to know about the new Russia: The new boss was the same
as the old boss.'
This was, apparently, the figure who MI6 judged fit to head their Russia Desk, and whose analyses were regarded as serious
among people in the State Department, CIA, FBI, DOJ etc. LOL.
As to Simpson and Fritsch, they were supposed to be serious journalists. LOL again.
A curious thing is that Tom Catan once was.
He wrote a good long investigative piece in the 'Financial Times', back in 2004, about the death of Stephen Curtis, one of
the fourteen mysterious incidents in the U.K., which according to Heidi Blake of 'BuzzFeed', American intelligence agencies have
evidence establishing that they were the work of the Russian 'special services.'
(As, according to the 'Sky' report you and Colonel Lang discussed, the supposed attempt to assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal
is supposed to be.)
What Catan established is that, at the time his helicopter was blown out of the sky, Curtis, lawyer both to the Menatep
oligarchs and Berezovsky, had started 'singing sweetly' to what was the the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
And what he was telling them about the activities of Khodorkovsky and his associates would have been 'music to the ears'
of Putin and his associates.
As with the deaths of Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili, which also feature in Ms. Blake's farragos, at the precise time they
died, it was precisely Putin and his associates who had the strongest possible interest in keeping them alive.
Ironically, she inadvertently demonstrates a crucial element in this story – the extent to which not only British, but
American, intelligence/foreign policy/law enforcement agencies 'got into bed' with the members of the 'semibankirshchina' of the
'Nineties who refused to accept the terms Putin offered.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide a link to the Catan article, as it is no longer available on the web, and when I put my old
link into the 'Wayback Machine' version, I was told it was infected with a Trojan.
But I can send you a copy, if you are interested.
Leith,
Of course, no ancestry – be it Lithuanian, or Polish, or Ukrainian, or whatever – 'automatically' produces bias.
A prescient early analysis of Putin, which brings out that the notion that his KGB background meant that he wanted conflict
with the West is BS, is the 2002 paper 'Vladimir Putin & Russia's Special Services.'
It was published by the 'Conflict Studies Research Centre', which was what the old 'Soviet Studies Research Centre', which
did 'open source' analysis for the British military at Sandhurst became, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The actual name of 'Gordon Bennett', who wrote it, is Henry Plater-Zyberk. They were a great, and very distinguished, Polish-Lithuanian
noble family.
In quite a long experience of refugees to these islands from the disasters of twentieth-century European history, and their
descendants, I have found that sometimes the history is taken as a subject of reflection and becomes a source of insight and understanding
not granted to those with more fortunate backgrounds.
At other times, however, people become locked in a trauma, out of which they cannot escape.
Many here seem to think Russia is a nation totally separate from the now defunct Soviet
Union, that Russia is incapable or unwilling to engage in the seamier aspects of realpolitik
like all other nations. Funny, Putin doesn't ascribe to this view. A short time ago, someone
posted a link to a lecture by the KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov
Bezmenov was trying to please new owners. Russia does not have resources to engage like USA
in Full Spectrum Dominance games. Like Obama correctly said it is regional power.
Also why bother, in internal fight between two factions of neoliberal elite is really bitter
and dirty fight. You can't do better that neoliberal Dems in dividing the country. Why spend
money if you can just wait.
Enormity of problems within Russia exclude any possibilities of trying to emulate the
imperial behavior of the USA. Also Russia does not have the printing press for the world
reserve currency, which the USA still has.
And Putin is the first who understands this precarious situation, mentioning this limitation
several times in his speeches. As well as the danger of being pushed into senseless arm race
with the USA again by Russian MIC, which probably would lead to similar to the USSR results --
further dissolution of Russia into smaller statelets. Which is a dream of both the USA and the
EU, for which they do not spare money.
Russia is a very fragile country -- yet another neoliberal country with its own severe
problems related to "identity politics" (or more correctly "identity wedge") which both EU and
the USA is actively trying to play. Sometimes very successfully.
Ukraine coup detat was almost a knockdown for Putin, at least a very strong kick in
the chin; it happened so quick and was essentially prepared by Yanukovish himself with his
por-EU and pro-nationalist stance. Being a sleazy crook, he dug the grave for his government
mostly by himself.
Now the same game can be repeated in Belarussia as Lukachenko by-and-large outlived his
usefulness and like most autocratic figures created vacuum around himself -- he has neither
viable successor, not the orderly, well defined process of succession; but economic problems
mounts and mounts. Which gives EU+USA a chance to repeat Ukrainian scenario, as by definition
years of independence strengthens far right nationalist forces in the country (which were
present during WWII probably is no less severe form than in Ukraine and Baltic countries).
Which like all xUUSR nationalists are adamantly anti-Russian.
Currently the personality of Putin is kind of most effective guarantee of political
stability in Russia, but like any cult of personality this can't last forever and it might
deprive Russia of finding qualified successor.
Putin was already burned twice with his overtures to Colonel Qaddafi (who after Medvedev's
blunder in UN was completely unable to defend himself), and Yanukovich, who in addition to
stupidly pandering to nationalists and trying to be the best friend of Biden proved to be a
despicable coward.
"... Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture, and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign land? ..."
President Bill Clinton's favorite freedom fighter just got indicted for mass murder, torture, kidnapping, and other crimes against
humanity. In 1999, the Clinton administration launched a 78-day bombing campaign that killed up to 1500 civilians in Serbia and Kosovo
in what the American media proudly portrayed as a crusade against ethnic bias. That war, like most of the pretenses of U.S. foreign
policy, was always a sham.
Kosovo President Hashim Thaci was charged with ten counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by an international tribunal
in The Hague in the Netherlands. It charged Thaci and nine other men with "war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of
persons, persecution, and torture." Thaci and the other charged suspects were accused of being "criminally responsible for nearly
100 murders" and the indictment involved "hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include
political opponents."
Hashim Thaci's tawdry career illustrates how anti-terrorism is a flag of convenience for Washington policymakers. Prior to becoming
Kosovo's president, Thaci was the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), fighting to force Serbs out of Kosovo. In 1999, the Clinton
administration designated the KLA as "freedom fighters" despite their horrific past and gave them massive aid. The previous year,
the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army." The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking
and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden.
But arming the KLA and bombing Serbia helped Clinton portray himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention
after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many shameless members of Congress anxious to sanctify U.S. killing. Sen. Joe Lieberman
(D-CN) whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for
human rights and American values." And since Clinton administration officials publicly compared Serb leader Slobodan Milošević to
Hitler, every decent person was obliged to applaud the bombing campaign.
Both the Serbs and ethnic Albanians committed atrocities in the bitter strife in Kosovo. But to sanctify its bombing campaign,
the Clinton administration waved a magic wand and made the KLA's atrocities disappear. British professor Philip Hammond noted that
the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what it called 'dual-use' targets, such as
factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an attempt to terrorize the country into
surrender."
NATO repeatedly dropped cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas. Cluster bombs are anti-personnel
devices designed to be scattered across enemy troop formations. NATO dropped more than 1,300 cluster bombs on Serbia and Kosovo and
each bomb contained 208 separate bomblets that floated to earth by parachute. Bomb experts estimated that more than 10,000 unexploded
bomblets were scattered around the landscape when the bombing ended and maimed children long after the ceasefire.
In the final days of the bombing campaign, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing
Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" The Post also reported that according to one Clinton friend "what Clinton
believes were the unambiguously moral motives for NATO's intervention represented a chance to soothe regrets harbored in Clinton's
own conscience The friend said Clinton has at times lamented that the generation before him was able to serve in a war with a plainly
noble purpose, and he feels 'almost cheated' that 'when it was his turn he didn't have the chance to be part of a moral cause.'"
By Clinton's standard, slaughtering Serbs was "close enough for government work" to a "moral cause."
Shortly after the end of the 1999 bombing campaign, Clinton enunciated what his aides labeled the Clinton doctrine: "Whether within
or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing."
In reality, the Clinton doctrine was that presidents are entitled to commence bombing foreign lands based on any brazen lie that
the American media will regurgitate. In reality, the lesson from bombing Serbia is that American politicians merely need to publicly
recite the word "genocide" to get a license to kill.
After the bombing ended, Clinton assured the Serbian people that the United States and NATO agreed to be peacekeepers only "with
the understanding that they would protect Serbs as well as ethnic Albanians and that they would leave when peace took hold." In the
subsequent months and years, American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serb civilians,
bombing Serbian churches and oppressing any non-Muslims. Almost a quarter-million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled
Kosovo after Mr. Clinton promised to protect them. By 2003, almost 70 percent of the Serbs living in Kosovo in 1999 had fled, and
Kosovo was 95 percent ethnic Albanian.
But Thaci remained useful for U.S. policymakers. Even though he was widely condemned for oppression and corruption after taking
power in Kosovo, Vice President Joe Biden hailed Thaci in 2010 as the "George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council
of Europe report accused Thaci and KLA operatives of human organ trafficking. The Guardian noted that the report alleged
that Thaci's inner circle "took captives across the border into Albania after the war, where a number of Serbs are said to have been
murdered for their kidneys, which were sold on the black market." The report stated that when "transplant surgeons" were "ready to
operate, the [Serbian] captives were brought out of the 'safe house' individually, summarily executed by a KLA gunman, and their
corpses transported swiftly to the operating clinic."
Despite the body trafficking charge, Thaci was a star attendee at the annual Global Initiative conference by the Clinton Foundation
in 2011, 2012, and 2013, where he posed for photos with Bill Clinton. Maybe that was a perk from the $50,000 a month lobbying contract
that Thaci's regime signed with The Podesta Group, co-managed by future Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, as the
Daily Caller reported.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that
the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding
documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate
representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
In 2019, Bill Clinton and his fanatically pro-bombing former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, visited Pristina, where they
were "treated like rock stars" as they posed for photos with Thaci. Clinton declared, "I love this country and it will always be
one of the greatest honors of my life to have stood with you against ethnic cleansing (by Serbian forces) and for freedom." Thaci
awarded Clinton and Albright medals of freedom "for the liberty he brought to us and the peace to entire region." Albright has reinvented
herself as a visionary warning against fascism in the Trump era. Actually, the only honorific that Albright deserves is "Butcher
of Belgrade."
Clinton's war on Serbia was a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and most of the media portrayed
the war against Serbia as a moral triumph, it was easier for the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq, for the Obama administration
to bomb Libya, and for the Trump administration to repeatedly bomb Syria. All of those interventions sowed chaos that continues cursing
the purported beneficiaries.
Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The
fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture,
and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the
next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign
land?
VT: The real story of betrayal and how fake history, invented for the West by globalist
elites from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The result has been an America and Britain
with generations raised in ignorance, leading to the global catastrophe we see today.
Key in this paper are the background issues tied to the runup between the start of the
war in September 1939 and the German invasion of Russia in June 1941.
Some information here is damning to Stalin, however, much if not most is very needed
historical clarification and insight into Soviet thinking.
Only when we understand how the precursor of Trump's Kosher Nostra friends started World
War II will we recognize how we are walking the same path, led by fake historians and the
ignorant.
Everything Putin writes is there for Western historians to see, were they allowed to tell
that story without persecution, which they aren't.
Simply put, the Americans and British who fought and died in World War II did so because
the elites of their nation in concert with a centuries old cabal of financial criminals, failed
to control history out of hubris, arrogance and ignorance.
But then none of them died and they made trillions
By Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation
Seventy-five years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations
have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union
that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides,
the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why
does Russia celebrate the ninth of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a
halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?
They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family's history. Behind
these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss.
Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.
For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my
two-year-old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to
survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown.
He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok
bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk
to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. However, I no longer have the
opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart those conversations I had
with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.
People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They
need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer,
unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were
defending their home, their children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was
the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully
reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its
heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.
I often wonder: What would today's generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis
situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the "red zone" to
save lives. I see our servicemen that fight international terrorism in the Northern Caucasus
and fought to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the
legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19-20 years old. But all of them proved that
they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our homeland that defended it during the
Great Patriotic War.
This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia
is to fulfill their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand.
Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Motherland
remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a
large extent, the backbone of our country's sovereignty.
Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This
is the memory march that symbolizes our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the
blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the
photographs of their relatives that defended their Motherland and defeated the Nazis. This
means that their lives, their ordeals and sacrifices, as well as the Victory that they left to
us will never be forgotten.
We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those
horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an
article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several
occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders
held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future
generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the
Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side
together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I
also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.
That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time
that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional
outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed.
Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite
history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed
difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be
found not only in the Russian, but also in the foreign archives.
Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect
on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our
country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive
documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicized
speculations.
I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly
stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of
grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being
forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French
marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description
of that Treaty: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."
It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical sentiments of
revenge in Germany. The Nazis skillfully played on people's emotions and built their propaganda
promising to deliver Germany from the "legacy of Versailles" and restore the country to its
former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western
states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly
contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German
factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy
and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on
the rise both in Germany and in Europe.
The "Versailles world order" caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts.
They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World
War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and
mutual claims that turned into "time bombs".
One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations.
There were high expectations for that international organization to ensure lasting peace and
collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could
actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.
However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United
Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations
and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet
Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact
and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.
The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such
as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, the civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against
China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in
addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken
apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard
that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by
meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and
was a welcome guest in the European capitals.
Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided
together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish
Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland
Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: " in case of a conflict between
Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland." The
Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act "only after the Germans occupy
the Sudetes."
Poland was aware that without Hitler's support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail.
I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to
Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was
focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It
says: "Mr. Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded [to] Polish interests
at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The
attitude of the Führer and Chancellor was fully appreciated by the Government and the
public [of Poland]."
The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal,
fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were
worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as a "trigger" and made the great war in
Europe inevitable.
Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich
Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and
supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is
not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those
dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.
The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements
with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland,
in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective
security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it
directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef
Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: " in the past year, the Polish government rejected four
times the proposal to join the international interfering in defense of Czechoslovakia."
Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks,
chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so
doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet
Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.
That is the essence of the western policy of appeasement, which was pursued not only towards
the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact
– the fascist Italy and militarist Japan . In the Far East, this policy culminated in the
conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand
in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognize the mortal danger posed by
Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left
untouched by the war.
The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with
security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an
anti-Soviet front, if needed.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance of creating an anti-Hitler
coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double‑dealing on the part of
the Western countries . For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet
leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany
in the summer of 1939 . The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and
practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the
USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this
connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the
British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the
delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United
Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their
freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French
delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the
necessary authority to "sign a military convention on the organization of military defense of
England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe."
Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any
obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish
leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht.
It was only when they learned of the arrival of Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly
and not directly, through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: " in the event of joint
action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union is not
out of the question, in technical circumstances which remain to be agreed." At the same time,
he explained to his colleagues: " I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics,
and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged."
In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was
practically the last among the European countries to do so . Besides, it was done in the face
of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the
east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.
Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the
crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In
other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor
understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were
made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this
real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country's defenses.
Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection
with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the
USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an
inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let us recall that the Soviet
Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The
Supreme Soviet in its resolution of 24 December 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols
as "an act of personal power" which in no way reflected "the will of the Soviet people
who bear no responsibility for this collusion."
Yet other states have preferred to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis
and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such
cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some
European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the
cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with
Hitler on 20 September 1938: " for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his
honor a splendid monument in Warsaw."
Besides, we do not know if there were any secret "protocols" or annexes to agreements of a
number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for
it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been
declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives
public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the
way Russia has done it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and
joint research projects engaging historians.
But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was
naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new
territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of
Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the
so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that
Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation
of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from
its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler's machine of
destruction.
The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite
the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on 8 September 1939 – only a week after
the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By 17 September,
the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, abandoning its people, who
continued to fight against the invaders.
Poland's hope for help from its Western allies was in vain. After the war against Germany
was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometers deep into the German
territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the
Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on 12 September 1939 in the French
city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid
developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France
did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.
Later, during the Nuremberg trials, German generals explained their quick success in the
East. The former chief of the operations staff of the German armed forces high command, General
Alfred Jodl admitted: " we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French
and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with
Poland remained absolutely idle."
I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the
contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939.
According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet
Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political
reorganization of the districts making up the Polish state, the border of the spheres of
interest of the two countries would run "approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San
rivers". In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that
were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belarusian population but also the historically Polish lands
in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.
Similarly, very few know that, immediately following the attack on Poland, in the early days
of September 1939 Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action.
However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the
dramatic developments as long as possible.
It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to
help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the
approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of 17 September,
Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines, which nowadays form part of the
territories of Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania.
Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased
risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only
within a few tens of kilometers of Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war
with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of
different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov
and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices –
anti-Semites and radical nationalists.
The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long
as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real
contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders
agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called
Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of
Poland.
As is known, there is hardly any point in using the subjunctive mood when we speak of the
past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity
to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided
against it
The Germans suggested formalizing the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 Joachim von
Ribbentrop and V.Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany
and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to
which the border was recognized at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto
stood.
In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals,
started the process of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to
the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities.
This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the
city of Vilna and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned
to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language,
and had representation in the higher state structures of the Soviet Union.
During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military
struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy,
and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there is no reason to take
official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of 'friendship' between
the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with
Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the
Soviet Union into Germany's confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood
firm.
The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during the visit of
Molotov to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin's instructions and
limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the
Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the
UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions
to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: "For your information No
agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in
Berlin and that was all Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us
towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such
advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate ." And on November 25 the Soviet leadership
called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were
unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual
assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately
excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer's
intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the
warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler
approved the Barbarossa Plan. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the
major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide
the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the
Moscow campaign.
And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact,
agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognized the Soviet Union's intention to
ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord
of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, "Russia has pursued a cold policy
of self-interest But that the Russian armies should stand on this line [the new Western border
is meant] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace." On October
4, 1939 speaking in the House of Lords British Foreign Secretary Halifax said, " it should be
recalled that the Soviet government's actions were to move the border essentially to the line
recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon I only cite historical facts and
believe they are indisputable." Prominent British politician and statesman D. Lloyd George
emphasized, "The Russian armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were
forcibly seized by Poland after the First World War It would be an act of criminal insanity to
put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one."
In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Maisky, British
diplomats and high-level politicians spoke even more openly . On October 17, 1939
Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided him that the British
government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belarus
to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a
modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France,
the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939,
Chamberlain's senior advisor H.Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent
state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belarus.
It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving
British-Soviet relations were also being explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the
foundation for future alliance and anti-Hitler coalition. Churchill stood out among other
responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had
been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the
House of Commons, "We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a grand alliance against
aggression. The worst folly would be to drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia."
And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Maisky on October 6, 1939 he
confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore,
there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the
British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other
measures that might improve the relationships.
The Second World War did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a
sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a
number of tendencies and factors of the world policy of that time. All pre-war events fell into
place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the
greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the
aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for a
compromise.
Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister
Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of the Second World War. All the leading countries
are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes,
arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for
themselves or stay away from the impending world catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the
refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous
losses.
Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit
anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the
historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is
academics with a wide representation of respected scientists from different countries of the
world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and
objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and
trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such
an approach will make it possible not to repeat the errors committed back then and to ensure
peaceful and successful development for years to come.
However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing
their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country,
trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty, and adopt thoroughly hypocritical and
politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of
European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on 19
September 2019 directly accused the USSR together with the Nazi Germany of unleashing the
Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.
I believe that such 'paperwork' – for I cannot call this resolution a document –
which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats.
Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what does that show?
Regrettably, this reveals a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order
whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for States a number of representatives
of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the
conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create
after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this
regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant
structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt
form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put
this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.
Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also
raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness
can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when
declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War mention all
participants in the anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly
as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are
demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an
unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when
those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera's successors are killed and burned. Once
again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less
disgusting.
Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold
the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial
about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia's
largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War
II and the pre‑war period.
Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were
also used in the preparation of this article . In this regard, I can state with all
responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the
USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed
followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly
confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such
strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.
Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German
headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From
the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgment of
the country's military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along
with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true
information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to
improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of
those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves
from internal military districts to western borders.
The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi
attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet
Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army in the world with the industrial,
economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht,
but also German satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European
continent, took part in this deadly invasion.
The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe.
Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilization and
intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of
citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the
east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied
to the front already in the first military winter, was launched in the shortest possible time,
and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within
six months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and
the home front. It is still hard to realize, understand and imagine what incredible efforts,
courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.
The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land,
rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up
to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people's plans and
hopes.
Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible
and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh split caused by the revolution and
the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks
tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had
its impact. But the general attitude of the absolute majority of Soviet citizens and our
compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the
Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true
patriotic values.
The Nazi "strategists" were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be
brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and
unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country
could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: "Our policy towards the peoples living in
the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and division".
But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress
was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders of more than 30 ethnicities.
Throughout the war, the feat of the Soviet people knew no national boundaries – both in
large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every meter of native
land.
The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and
Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had
and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real
indestructible fortress for the enemy.
The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the
main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end
surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They
launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They
liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.
We contend for genuine, unvarnished, or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human
truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who
walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for others, their
honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark in my
soul forever. Honoring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering
those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.
And today, the simple and great in its essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky's poem "I was
killed near Rzhev " dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great
Patriotic War in the center of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. Only in the
battles for Rzhev and the Rzhevsky Salient from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost
1,154, 698 people, including wounded and missing. For the first time, I call out these
terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honor
the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were
undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war
years.
Let me cite you another document. This is a report of February 1954 on reparation from
Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission's task
was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages
sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that "the number of soldier-days spent
by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The
Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German
aircraft." On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts
undertaken by the anti-Hitler coalition. During the war period, the Red Army "ground up" 626
divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.
On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: "These
Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies –
troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together".
Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote "that it is the
Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine ".
Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great
truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the
fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of
the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and
the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union's hardest and grievous
losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and
fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters,
prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our
duty. And here, members of the search movement, military‑patriotic and volunteer
associations, such projects as the electronic database "Pamyat Naroda", which contains archival
documents, play a special role. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such
a common humanitarian task.
The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in
victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their
satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy
and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor
in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and
their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting
France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the
Nazis.
We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the
Red Army with ammunition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant
– about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.
The core of the anti-Hitler coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on
the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight
against Hitler's Germany. At the Tehran conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill
formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint
strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear
understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the
USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.
The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping
hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by
carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belarus. In January 1945, having broken
through to the Oder River, it put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the
Western Front in the Ardennes.
Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta
agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.
Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that the purpose of the War against
fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but
also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism. By the
middle of 1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the
enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in
Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the
Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet
soldiers.
It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR
provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their
economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for
thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945,
the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it "had no idea how
to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest." The state chancellor of
the provisional government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the
Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.
The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political
and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against
humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.
Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis,
collaborators of various kinds.
This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as
Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were
disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors
and slaughterers. In inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve,
as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were
responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt
Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.
Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the
criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no statute of limitations for them. It is
therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with
the Nazis are suddenly equated with the Second World War veterans. I believe that it is
unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of
Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of
the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.
At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without
exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with
different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but demonstrated great political
will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the
forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from
which all of humanity has benefited.
The victorious powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual
and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San
Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global
war, despite the sharpest contradictions.
Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, and
primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous
because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful
development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945 . The major historic
achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism
that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving
their differences.
The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945
the nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other
words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors
in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own
responsibility towards humanity.
The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure
of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and
effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security
Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.
What is veto power in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable
alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the
five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its
ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this
position for granted, abandoning any attempts to realize their unilateral efforts. So, in one
way or another, it is necessary to seek compromises.
A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War
and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World
War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big
Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it
possible to further minimize risks and keep confrontation under control.
Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work
and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The
principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or
global conflict.
The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the veto power, to deny
special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible.
After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations
– a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is
well known. That is why the victorious powers approached the formation of the new system of the
world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of the mistakes of their
predecessors.
The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of
the Second World War. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical,
ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and
interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a
turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the
social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In
the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military
conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and
farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a
system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition,
historically inherent in the world development.
It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily
representatives of the victorious powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this
system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political
will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr. Xi Jinping, Mr. Macron, Mr.
Trump and Mr. Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders
of the five nuclear-weapon States, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for
this and hope that such a face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.
What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it
would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak
frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security,
strategic arms control, as well as joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other
major challenges and threats.
A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And
above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are
taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens
who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in
concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how
quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn
the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include
environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the
global information space.
The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and
relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and
initiatives on all the items.
There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the
UK can play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and
will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals
and values for which our fathers and grandfathers were fighting shoulder to shoulder.
Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will
serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of
enhancing the stability and security on the planet and for the sake of prosperity and
well-being of all States. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility
towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.
Vladimir Putin serves as President of the Russian Federation.
Lying about world history is one of the main weapons of the Western imperialists, through
which they are managing to maintain their control of the world.
European and North American countries are inventing and spreading a twisted narrative about
almost all essential historic events, be they colonialism, crusades, or genocides committed by
the Western expansionism in all corners of the globe.
One of the vilest fabrications has been those which were unleashed against the young Soviet
Union, a country that emerged from the ruins of the civil war fueled by the European, North
American, and Japanese imperialist interests. Foreign armies and local violent gangs were
destroying countless cities and villages, robbing, raping, and murdering local people. But
determined acts to restore order and elevate the Soviet Union from its knees, dramatically
improving lives of tens of millions, was termed in a derogatory way as "Stalinism". The label
of brutality was soon skillfully attached to it.
Next came the Great Patriotic War (for the Soviets), or what is also known as the Second
World War.
The West miscalculated, hoping that Nazi Germany would easily destroy the Soviet Union, and
with it, the most determined Communist revolution on earth.
But Germany had, obviously, much bigger goals. While brutalizing Soviet lands, it also began
committing crimes against humanity all over Europe, doing precisely what it used to do in its
African colonies, decades earlier, which was, basically, exterminating entire nations and
races.
While the United States first hesitated to intervene (some of its most powerful individuals
like Henry Ford were openly cooperating with the German Nazis), the European nations basically
collapsed like the houses of cards.
Then, unthinkable took place: indignant, injured but powerful, enormous the Soviet Union
stood up, raised, literally from ashes. Kursk and Stalingrad fought as no cities ever fought
before, and neither did Leningrad, withstanding 900 years of blockade. There, surrender was not
an option: people preferred to eat glue and plywood, fighting hunger, as long as fascist boots
were not allowed to step on the pavement of their stunningly beautiful city.
In Leningrad, almost all men were dead before the siege was lifted. Women went to the front,
including my grandmother, and they, almost with bare hands repelled the mightiest army on
earth.
They did it for their city. And for the entire world. They fought for humanity, as Russia
did so many times in the past, and they won, at a tremendous cost of more than 25 million
soldiers, civilians, men, women, and children.
Then, Soviet divisions rolled Eastwards, liberating Auschwitz, Prague, planting the red
Soviet flag on top of Reichstag in Berlin.
The world was saved, liberated. By Soviet people and Soviet steel.
The end of a monstrous war! Entire Soviet cities in ruins. Villages burned to ashes.
But new war, a Cold War, a true war against colonialism, for the liberation of Africa and
Asia was already beginning! And the internationalist war against racism and slavery.
No, such narrative could never be allowed to circulate in the West, in its colonies and
client states! Stalin, Soviet Union, anti-colonialist struggle – all had to be smeared,
dragged through the dirt!
*
That smearing campaign first against the Soviet Union and then against Russia was conducted
all over Europe, and it gained tremendous proportions.
Mass media has been spreading lies, and so were schools and universities.
The foulest manipulations were those belittling decisive role of the USSR in the victory
against Nazi Germany. But Western propaganda outlets also skillfully and harmfully re-wrote the
entire history of the Soviet Union, portraying it in the most nihilist and depressing ways,
totally omitting tremendous successes of the first Communist country, as well as its heroic
role in the fight against the global Western colonialism and imperialism.
*
Since the end of WWII, Italy has been in the center of the ideological battle, at least when
it comes to Europe.
With its powerful Communist Party, almost all great Italian thinkers and artists were either
members or at least closely affiliated with the Left. Partisans who used to fight fascism were
clearly part of the Left.
Would it not be for the brutal interference in Italy's domestic politics by the U.S. and
U.K., the Italian Communist Party would have easily won the elections, democratically, right
during the post-war period.
Relations between the Italian and Soviet/Russian people were always excellent: both nations
inspired and influenced each other, greatly, particularly when it comes to arts and
ideology.
However, like in the rest of Europe, the mainstream media, the propaganda injected by the
Anglo-Saxon polemicists and their local counterparts, had a huge impact and eventually damaged
great ties and understanding between two nations.
Especially after destruction of the Soviet Union, Italian Left began experiencing a long
period of profound crises and confusion.
Anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda started finding fertile ground even in such
historical bastions of the Italian Left like Bologna.
*
With the arrival of the 5 Star Movement and the radical, traditional Left-wing fractions
concealed inside it, the millions of Italian citizens began waking up from their ideological
lethargy.
I witnessed it when speaking at the legendary Sapienza University in Rome, shoulder to
shoulder with professor Luciano Vasapollo, a great thinker and former political prisoner.
I was impressed by young Italian filmmakers, returning to Rome from Donbas, arranging
countless political happenings in support of Russia.
Rome was boiling. People forgotten by history were resurfacing, while the young generation
was joining them. My friend Alessandro Bianchi and his increasingly powerful magazine,
L'Antidiplomatico, were bravely standing by Venezuela and Cuba, but also by Russia and
China.
Still, Mr. Bianchi kept repeating:
"These days, very few Italians understand what happened during WWII. It is a tragedy,
real tragedy "
And then, recently, L'Antidiplomatico informed me that it will be publishing, in
order to celebrate the April 25 and May 9 anniversaries, an essential book put together by the
Soviet Information Bureau, by the academics, with notes and inside information by Joseph
Stalin. It was fired right after the end of WWII: "Falsifiers of History. Historic
Information." (In Russian: " Fal'sifikatory istorii. Istoriceskaja spravka .")
Now in Italian, the book will be called " Contro la falsificazione della storia ieri e
oggi " ( Fabrizio Poggi: "Against the Falsification of History Yesterday and Today").
The powerful editorial work of Mr. Poggi is unveiling the truth, and counter-attacking the
Western Anti-Soviet propaganda.
Throughout this work, "The Anglo-American claims about the alleged Berlin-Moscow union against
the 'western democracies' and a "secret pact between the USSR and Hitler to divide all of
Eastern Europe" were clearly dismantled. The falsity of the rhetoric which is repeatedly used
today in virtually all Western countries is exposed here, step by step.
Ale Bianchi, the publisher, explains: "The translation presented here is preceded by an introduction, edited by Poggi himself,
which mentions the main issues of the period before the Second World War: Polish-German
relations, the role of France and Great Britain and their relations with the USSR, Munich
Conference, etc., all used by Western propagandists to advance the theory of "equal
responsibility" of Nazi Germany and the USSR for the outbreak of the Second World War."
I asked Mr. Bianchi about the main purpose of launching the book in Italy, and he answered
without hesitation:
"To defeat the anti-Soviet propaganda and also propaganda related to the Second World
War."
*
In many ways, Fabrizio Poggi's " Against the Falsification of History Yesterday and
Toda y"), is not just a book. It is a movement, which will consist of discussions,
lectures, interviews.
Top Italian intellectuals will, no doubt, participate. Many essential topics will be
revisited. The truth will be revealed.
This could be a new chapter in cooperation between the Italian and Russian thinkers and
progressive leaders, in their common struggle for a better world!
*
[First published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook – a journal of the Russian Academy
of Sciences]
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely legitimate, the
issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the world is growing, yet many U.S.
politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter in the global arena. Preoccupied with international
issues, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to
negotiate and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday seemed
so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals, Russophobia is merely
a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its
grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the
meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008
has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as U.S.
unilateralism in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with Western states.
The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia tells us volumes about the
United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first century's central challenges that
include political instability, weapons proliferation, and energy insecurity.
Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number of American elites, this attitude is
far from universally shared. Many Americans understand that Russia has gone a long way from
communism and that the overwhelming support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately
explained by high oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public -- despite the
frequent assertions of Russophobic observers. Balanced analysts are also aware that many
Russian problems are typical difficulties that nations encounter with state-building, and
should not be presented as indicative of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As
the United States and Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly
important to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an anti-Russian
nature For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia -- a phenomenon that I have partly
researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre Dame, 2004) and in several articles.
Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a
response to the U.S. policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world.
Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist
movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on
Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by
the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than
the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed. Western euphoria faded, and Russophobia returned
... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the governments, but in the statements of
out-of-office politicians, the publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of
jour- nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Bmithwaite, Across the
Moscow River, 2002)1
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Browns, but a real phenomenon of
political thought in the main political think tanks in the West . . . |T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's
pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period
in ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to serve Washington's
interests and that it would remain such in the future. (Sergei Mikoyan, International Affairs
[October 20061)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's influence on
the U.S. Russia policy. I discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its tactics to achieve them, the
history of its formation and rise to prominence, and the conditions that preserved its
influence in the after- math of 9/11.1 argue that Russophobia has been important to American
hegemonic elites in pressuring Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold
War era.
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in
the post-Cold War world through imperial or hege- monic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia
with its formidable nucleai power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a
major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of
projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future
revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential
to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness -- not so much out of emotional
hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote
its values across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for
exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of
undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of
power dictated by the realities of international politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century"
for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially
threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when
referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to
recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to
shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or
be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and
develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a
pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its
survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no
other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American
establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the
unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized
as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national
security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating
the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable
of reform.
Communism's decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the
system's "practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7 Other
com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values. In 1990 Francis Fukuyama
first formulated his triumphalist "end of history" thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the
Western-style market democracy.
Policy factors
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced by policy factors,
such as the divide within the policy community and the lack of presidential leadership. Not
infrequently, politicians tend to defend their personal and corporate interests, and lobbying
makes a difference in the absence of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that the split, which
goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for the absence of a coherent policy
toward the country. During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a
cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach
with the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not tolerate opposition
to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide U.S. hegemony. He was also
harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 Since November 2004, when the
administration launched a review of its policy on Russia,92
Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found its advocate. Secretaries
of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004, Colin Powell opposed the vice president's
approach, arguing for a softer and more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable to form a
consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the Middle East, Bush failed to
provide the leadership committed to devising mutually acceptable rules in relations with Russia
that could have prevented the deterioration in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he
also became doubtful about the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result,
the promising post-9/11 cooperation never materialized.
... ... ...
The "New Cold War" and the American Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the United States.
(Brer Stephens, "Russia: Vie Enemy," The Wall Street Journal, November 28,2006)
If todays reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real risk that
Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate. (John Edwards and
Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin, Ukraine -- the
list goes on -- Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its allies . . . here are
worse models than the united Western stand that won the Cold War the first time around. ("Putin
Institutionalized," Vie Wall Street Journal, November 19,2007)
In order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive the image of
Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups have exploited important
differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions, presenting those
differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American ideas of
Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian communism. Although
scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding to the Soviet threat, they
rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about history and freedom.1 It therefore should
not come as surprise that many in the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as
a victory of the Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure" --
as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2 -- the American discourse assumed that from now on there would
be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis Fukuyama offered his bold
summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted in a famous passage that "what we may be
witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War ... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant
to convey the disappearance of an alternative to the familiar idea of freedom, or "the
universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence,
rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from
colonization by the West and of pre- serving important attributes of sovereign statehood. In a
world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as
independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative
to the notion of liberal democracy. Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries
ago, as they successfully withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of
the Nazi regime was important to the Soviets because it legit- imized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence. The West's unwillingness to recognize the
importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key
reason for the Cold War.
Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger
assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western interpretation of
the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S. narrative is the tribute to
Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist ambitions of larger powers. The Cold
War too is viewed by many Russians as a necessarily defensive response to the West's policies,
and it is important that even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the
occupation, emphasizing instead the war victory.6
The Russians officially admitted "moral responsibility" and apologized for the Soviet
invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe, but only
in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War.
Russians also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial
contribution of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle to every
Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian wrote, "the only
undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
Toward an agreeable history
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two historical
narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the difficulty of negotiating a
common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea of freedom may vary greatly across nations.
The urge for freedom may be universal, but its social content is a specific product of national
his- tories and local circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially
downplayed the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under the
influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated a strong egalitarian
and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the Cold War -- and not without its
influence -- that democracy has become associated with elections and pluralistic
institutions.10
Second, it is essential to acknowledge the two nations' mutual responsibility for the
misunderstanding that has resulted in the Cold War. A his- torically sensitive account will
recognize that both sides were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect
their visions of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent in
accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust of the two countries'
leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more difficult to prevent a full-fledged
political confrontation.
Western leaders had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the
perception of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to the
appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II world made by Britain,
the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to address these deep-seated suspicions. In
addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles Treaty were
neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in its racist and expansionist
policies. The European post-World War I security system was not working properly, and it was
only a matter of time before it would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to accept that the end
of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial...
... ... ..
..."it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains that it made in the
decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another expert asked, "What possible
explanation is there for the fact that today -- at a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face
the common enemy of Islamist terrorism -- hard-liners within the Bush administration, and
especially in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line
against Moscow along the lines of a scaled-down Cold War?""3
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the
great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner,
friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological,
territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.
We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns,
and, with our 'indispensablenation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
[Russians] fight brutally because that is part of the Russian military
ethos, a tradition of total war fought with every means and without
moral restraints. (Los Angeles Times, Editorial, 1999)
The Chechen issue is delaying the post-imperial transformation of Russia. It is not only
delaying it, it is helping to reverse it. And this is why one should care. (Zbigniew
Brzezinski, "Catastrophe in Chechnya: Escaping the Quagmire, n 2004)
In Chechnya, our basic morality is at stake. ... [T]he Russian government is suppressing the
liberties gained when the Soviet empire col-
lapsed? The Chechen war both masks and motivates the reestablishment of a central power in
Russia. (Andri Glucksmann et ai, "End the Silence Over Chechnya, n
2006)
One way to make sense of Russia's problems in the Caucasus is to view them as a continuation
of the imperial disintegration set in motion by Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms. Western advocates
of this perspective often believe that not only the Soviet Union but Russia too is responsible
for oppressing non-Russian nationalities and religions, including Islam.
Russia is perceived as not principally different from the British, French, or Portuguese
colonial empires, and Chechnya as indicative of a larger trend toward the breakup of the
Russian empire. This narrative is popular in Western media and academia, partly because it
brings to mind the heroic Chechen resistance to Russia in the nineteenth century. 1
To many left-leaning observers, even violence is justified when it is directed against
Anglo-Saxon and European oppressors, and when it aims to advance the self-determination denied
to their colonial subjects. To Americans, this argument carries additional weight, in part
because the United States was not directly involved in the West's colonial practices.
A recent example of the decolonization narrative is the book by Tony Wood, the deputy editor
of the New Left Review, in which he makes a case for Chechnya's independence. 2 Wood
documents the history of Chechen resistance beginning with the nineteenth century and argues
that, as with the case of Algeria under the French, ethnic Russians held prominent jobs and
controlled key political positions in the northern Caucasus. 3 He further asserts
that, although Chechens had not developed their own institutions of elites under Soviet rule,
the situation there in the 1990s was hardly more corrupt or chaotic than in other parts of the
former USSR, and therefore the threat of Islamic terrorism in the northern Caucasus is an
overstatement. 4 What Chechens lacked from Russia was humane treatment, a
willingness to negotiate an international recognition of their independence claims, rather than
a war waged against them. Wood maintains that if the West had provided such recognition early
enough, the disastrous military intervention by Moscow, as well as attempts to isolate Chechnya
economically, might have been prevented.
The conservative version of the decolonization argument is similar, but it places a greater
emphasis on the Russian people and their "oppressive and imperialist" political culture,
viewing colonial institutions as a direct extension of this imperial mindset. For instance,
Richard Pipes, who also compared Chechnya to Algeria, insisted on independence as the only way
to prevent Russia's further territorial disintegration. 5 Zbigniew Brzezinski was
even more blunt in holding "die Russians" responsible for depriving Chechens of their own
political institutions, 6 as well as assuming that Russian attitudes and behavior
since Stalin's deportation of Chechens and other nationalities
had not changed.
In Anatol Lieven's words, "The condemnation of Stalinism by Nikita Khrushchev, the reforms
of Mikhail Gorbachev, the peaceful Soviet withdrawal from Poland, the Russian recognition of
the independence of the other Soviet republics -- all this is ignored." 7 What
Western geopoliticians seem to be especially concerned about is a possible revival of a Russian
statehood, which they view as equivalent to an empire. 8
Upon a closer scrutiny, the decolonization argument is difficult to sustain. The zero-sum
approach -- either empire or hill independence -- fails to recognize the most important
challenge faced by the modern state, which is how to accommodate minorities and guarantee their
rights without undermining the political viability and territorial integrity of the state
itself.
As scholars have argued, international law recognizes the right to secession, but it also
abhors the unilateral redrawing of borders. 9 Self-determination is not viable if it
comes at the cost of political instability, state disintegration, and violation of human
rights, which are all too evident in Chechnya. Even more problematic is the assumption that
Russians and Chechens are culturally incompatible or, as one scholar puts it, "it is hard to
think of a more likely pair of candidates for historical enmity than the Russian government and
the Chechens." 10
The Imperatives of state-building and Russia as a weak state
A more productive way to understand Russia is to see it as a nation that has relinquished
the Soviet state model and is now struggling to establish new political and economic
foundations of statehood. The post-Soviet Russia is a new state because it acts under new
international conditions that no longer accept traditional patterns of imperial domination.
However, Russia's long history as an empire and its complex relations with non-Russian
nationalities make creating a new power-sharing mechanism in the region a challenge.
Russia's historical relations with Chechnya include a long nineteenth-century war to
subjugate Chechnya's warriors to the tsar's imperial rule, as well as Stalin's mass deportation
of Chechens to Central Asia in 1944. Still, it is misleading to present these relations
exclusively as a historical confrontation." For instance, despite the Stalinist perception,
most Chechens did not collaborate with Hitler during World War II, and in fact fought bravely
on the Soviet side.
The tsar of Russia trusted Chechens enough to hire them as his bodyguards, and Chechens
served in some of the most selective Soviet battalions. Many Chechen intellectuals also shared
Mikhail Gorbachev's vision of democratic reform and the peaceful coexistence of diverse
nationalities within the framework of a single Soviet state. The overall story of the two
peoples' relationship is far too complex to be described as a "conflict of civilizations" or,
to quote former Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov, a "war [that] has been continuing for more
than 400 years." 12
During the Perestroika years -- as viewed by some Chechens themselves 13 -- the
democratic idea was hijacked by criminal elites and ethno-nationalists who saw a secessionist
opportunity in the decline of the Soviet state, and who prevailed in imposing their own
political agenda.
And what is your evidence for claiming that the EU and USA want to break up Russia into
'smaller statelets'? That smells a bit fishy. It would make the world a more dangerous
place.
One of distinctive features, the hallmark of neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment is rabid, often paranoid Russophobia which includes active,
unapologetic support of separatist movements within Russia.
I think the evidence of the USA and EU (especially GB, but also Poland, Sweden, and
Germany) multi-level (PR, MSM, financial, diplomatic and sometimes military) support of
Islamic separatists in Russia is well known: support of separatist movements in Russia is
just a continuation of the support of separatist movement within the USSR, which actually
helped to blow up the USSR from within (along the key role of KGB changing sides along with a
part of Politburo who deciding to privatize Russia's economy)
Here is old but still relevant list of "who is who" in the USA foreign policy
establishment in promoting separatism in Russia. You will see many prominent neocons in the
list.
The foreign policy of the USA toward Russia to a considerable extent is driven by emigres
from Eastern Europe and people who were accepted to the USA before and, especially, after
WWII from filtration camps. This "diaspora lobby" includes older generation of emigrants such
as late Brzezinski, Madeline Allbright, as well as more recent such as Farkas, Chalupa,
Appelebaum, etc. The same is true for Canada (Freeland). All of them are rabid, sometimes
paranoid (Brzezinski) Russophobs. They consistently use the USA as a leverage to settle the
"ancient hatred".
Many here seem to think Russia is a nation totally separate from the now-defunct Soviet
Union, that Russia is incapable or unwilling to engage in the seamier aspects of
realpolitik like all other nations. Funny, Putin does not ascribe to this view. A short
time ago, someone posted a link to a lecture by the KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov
Bezmenov was trying to please the new owners. Russia does not have resources to engage like
USA in Full Spectrum Dominance games. Like Obama correctly said, Russia now is a regional
power.
Also, why bother to do petty dirty tricks in Afghanistan, if an internal fight between two
factions of the neoliberal elite, is a really bitter and dirty fight. You cannot do better
than neoliberal Dems in weakening and dividing the country. Why spend money, if you can just
wait.
The enormity of problems within Russia itself also excludes any possibilities of trying to
emulate the imperial behavior of the USA and CIA dirty tricks. Russia does not have the
printing press for the world reserve currency, which the USA still has.
And Putin is the first who understands this precarious situation, mentioning this
limitation several times in his speeches. As well as the danger of being pushed into
senseless arms race with the USA again by the alliance of the USA neocons and Russian MIC,
which probably would lead to similar to the USSR results -- the further dissolution of Russia
into smaller statelets. Which is a dream of both the USA and the EU, for which they do not
spare money.
Russia is a very fragile country -- yet another neoliberal country with a huge level of
inequality and a set of very severe problems related to the economy and "identity politics"
(or more correctly "identity wedge"), which both EU and the USA is actively trying to play.
Sometimes very successfully.
Ukraine coup d'etat was almost a knockdown for Putin, at least a powerful kick in
the chin; it happened so quick and was essentially prepared by Yanukovich himself with his
pro-EU and pro-nationalist stance. Being a sleazy crook, he dug the grave for his government
mostly by himself.
Now the same game can be repeated in Belorussia as Lukachenko by-and-large outlived his
usefulness, and like most autocratic figures created vacuum around himself -- he has neither
viable successor, not the orderly, well defined process of succession; but economic problems
mounts and mounts. This gives EU+USA a chance to repeat Ukrainian scenario, as like in
Ukraine, years of independence greatly strengthened far-right nationalist forces (which BTW
were present during WWII ; probably in less severe form than in Ukraine and Baltic countries
but still were as difficult to suppress after the war). Who, like all xUUSR nationalists are
adamantly, pathologically anti-Russian. That's where Russia need to spend any spare money,
not Afghanistan.
Currently, the personality of Putin is kind of most effective guarantee of political
stability in Russia, but like any cult of personality, this cannot last forever, and it might
deprive Russia of finding qualified successor.
But even Putin was already burned twice with his overtures to Colonel Qaddafi(who after
Medvedev's blunder in the UN was completely unable to defend himself against unleashed by the
West color revolution), and Yanukovich, who in addition to stupidly pandering to nationalists
and trying to be the best friend of Biden proved to be a despicable coward, making a color
revolution a nobrainer.
After those lessons, Putin probably will not swallow a bait in a form of invitation to be
a "decider" in Afghanistan.
So your insinuations that Russian would do such stupid, dirty and risky tricks are not
only naive, they are completely detached from the reality.
The proper way to look at it is as a kind of PR or even false flag operation which was
suggested by David Habakkuk:
...we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by
incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western
Europe.
"The author painstakingly reconstructs and analyzes most visible expressions of Russophobia in various segments of American political
class. . . [and] convincingly shows that Russia-hostile elites hold images of Moscow s eternal authoritarianism at home and permanent
imperialism abroad." - Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya (World Economy and International Relations), No. 4, 2001,
pp. 113-116
"The book s chapters deal with, among other topics, the Chechen wars, democracy promotion and energy policies. It is also important
that this interpretation comes from a Russian-born political scientist who lives in the US and knows American discourse and politics
well. Tsygankov s deep knowledge of both Russian affairs and camps and trends in US politics adds considerable value to this analysis.
. . . this dense description of, and spirited attack on, Western rhetoric and policies regarding Russia will be a valuable addition
and original contribution to seminars in such fields as international security, post-Soviet affairs and US foreign policy." - Europe-Asia
Studies
"Although many works about anti-Americanism in Russia existed already, until now there was a lack of an approach that focused
on Russophobia from an American perspective. . . Tsygankov s [book] provides the missing piece. . . This type of analysis opens the
door for more comparative analysis of different "phobias" in international relations - Sinophobia, Islamophobia, Europhobia, etc.
- and the tone of this book certainly inspires the further research of them that we would all benefit from." - Critique internationale
"In this stimulating and insightful book, Andrei Tsygankov shows how fear and loathing of Russia s political system as fundamentally
incompatible with the interests and values of the West have distorted American popular perceptions of Russia and misguided U.S. policies
toward the former Soviet Union. Arguing for a reorientation of U.S. attitudes and policies, Tsygankov calls for engagement, reciprocity,
and patience as the keys to improving relations with an enormous, resource-rich, and strategically important country." - David S.
Foglesong, Associate Professor of History at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and author of The American Mission and
the "Evil Empire"
"Andrei Tsygankov is one of the most profound analysts of both the rational and the irrational aspects of the US-Russian relationship.
His searching, provocative book is an indispensable contribution to scholarship and to the debate on US policy towards Russia." -
Professor Anatol Lieven, King's College London
About the Author ANDREI P. TSYGANKOV is Professor at the Departments of Political Science and International Relations, San
Francisco State University, USA.
An analysis like Andrei P. Tsygankov's book was sorely
needed. However, I am not sure that Tsygankov will fully reach with this text what he seemingly wanted to attain - namely, an
effective, noted and, above all, consequential critique of US attitudes towards Russia during the last decade. Tsygankov has,
to be sure, done a great deal of investigative work. He details many episodes that illustrate well where US policy or opinion
makers have gone wrong. The book's chapters deal with, among other topics, the Chechen wars, democracy promotion, and energy policies.
It is also important that this interpretation comes from a Russia-born political scientist who lives in the US and knows American
discourse and politics well. Tsygankov's deep knowledge of both, Russian affairs as well as camps and trends in US politics, adds
considerable value to this analysis.
Yet, already the title of the book indicates where Tsygankov may be defeating his purpose. By way of classifying most of US-American
critique of Russia as "Russophobia", Tsygankov goes, at least in terms of the concepts and words that he uses to interpret these
phenomena, a bit too far. Tsygankov asserts that Russophobia is a major intellectual and political trend in US international thought
and behaviour. He also tries to make the reader believe that there exists a broad coalition of political commentators and actors
that form an anti-Russian lobby in Washington.
It is true that there is a lot to be criticised and improved in Western approaches towards post-Soviet Russia - and towards the
non-Western world, in general. US behaviour vis-à-vis, and American comments on, Russia, for the last 20 years, have all too often
been characterized by incompetence and insensitivity regarding the daunting challenges and far-reaching consequences of the peculiarly
post-Soviet political, cultural and economic transformation. Often, Russian-American relations have been hampered by plain inattention
among US decision and opinion makers - a stunning phenomenon in view of the fact that Russia has kept being and will remain a
nuclear superpower, for decades to come. The hundreds of stupidities that have been uttered on, and dozens of mistakes in US policies
towards, Russia needed to be chronicled and deconstructed. Partly, Tsygankov has done that here with due effort, interesting results
and some interpretative success. Yet, Tsygankov does not only talk about failures and omissions regarding Russia. He also speaks
of enemies of the Russian state in the US, and their supposed alliances as well various dealings.
Certainly, there is the occasional Russophobe in Washington and elsewhere, in the Western world. Among such personage, there are
even some who are indeed engaged in an anti-Russian political lobbying of sorts. However, the circle of activists who truly deserve
to be called "Russophobes" largely contains immigrants from the inner or outer Soviet/Russian empire. These are people who have
their own reasons to be distrustful of, or even hostile towards, Russia. After the rise of Vladimir Putin and the Russian-Georgian
War, many of them, I suspect, feel that they have always been right, in their anti-Russian prejudices. In any way, this is a relatively
small group of people who are more interested in the past and worried about the future of their newly independent nation-states
than they are concerned about the actual fate of Russia herself.
Among those who are interested in Russia there are many, as Tsygankov aptly documents, who have recently been criticizing the
Russian leadership harshly. Some of them have, in doing so, exerted influence on Western governments and public opinion. And partly
such critique was, indeed, unjustified, unbalanced or/and counterproductive. But is that enough to assert that there is an "anti-Russian
lobby"? What would such a lobby gain from spoiling US-Russian relationships? Who pays these lobbyists, and for what? Who, apart
from a few backward-looking East European émigrés, is sufficiently interested in a new fundamental Russian-Western confrontation
so as to conduct the allegedly concerted anti-Russian campaigns that Tsygankov appears to be discovering, in his book?
Dalton C. Rocha 9 years ago
Report abuse Less than one hundred years ago, there was more than ten Russians for each Brazilian. In 1991, there was more
Brazilians than Russians. Russia is in decadency since 1917. Please, keep Russia in peace, fighting against Islamics.
Leave a reply
Roobit 9 years ago (Edited)
Report abuse I have no idea what is abstract West (though I can say there is a pedophile when I see one) but the point Tsygankov
was trying to make is not existence of some paid lobby but widespread cultural and racial hatred of Russia that motivates Americans
and American policies, and not abstract Western (I have no idea what that is, French, Portuguese, Brazilian, Slovak, Norwegian,
Italian, City of Vatican?) attitudes and policies toward Russia. The author of the comment, a known and rather Russophobe himself,
should know what I mean.
Leave a reply
Oliver L. 9 years ago
Report abuse I appreciate your review (and I haven't read the book) but I think perhaps you are taking the existence of a
Russophobic lobby too literally...as an American who reads and follows international politics and American foreign policy I think
there is an overdeveloped reflex among many Americans to use Russia (regardless of the formal organization of its government i.e.
czarist, communist or "democratic") as a political foil to everything "good" about American politics i.e. democracy, openness,
empowerment of citizens, etc., that will not go away or even amerliorate until every last American politician, political scientist,
etc. who grew up with personal memories of the Cold War is no longer professionally active.
It is similar to what exists in the Anglosphere at a cultural level vis-á-vis France/the French, and perhaps what Professors
Mearsheimer and Walt were trying to describe about the "Israeli lobby"-not so much a formal organization but rather a pandemic
mentality among a certain group which inevitably finds a multiplicity of ways to express itself (and thereby give the impression
to some outside observers of being centrally organized).
Petty scoundrels from NYT are not that inventive. They just want to whitewash Russiagate fiasco. This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux
- regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of sources & methods. ..."
"... On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the job. ..."
After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top
intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of
sources & methods.
Be skeptical of anything published by Pravda on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac
when it comes to intelligence matters. Especially months before a general election.
On to Moscow! Where's Bomb'n Bolton when we need him?
"a European intelligence official told CNN."..... "The official did not specify as to the
date of the casualties, their number or nationality, or whether these were fatalities or
injuries."
So, unknown official, unknown date, unknown if there were any actual casualties.
"The US concluded that the GRU was behind the interference in the 2016 US election and
cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials."
Quick, someone tell the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee! Oh, wait, that was Ukraine.
What did Mueller collude, I mean conclude, about that Russian interference?
Let me quote the former acting DNI:
"You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to
reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for
political gain."
I believe he was tweeting that to the press, but then they are doing this for political
reasons. Lockdowns and socialist revolutionary riots must not be working in the left's
favor. I wonder why?
On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a
bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty
then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the
job.
So if a coalition soldier died on *this* day how was a Talibani supposed to confirm to
the GRU that "Yep, I did that. Where's my money?"
TTG, I think you are being led away from the truth by your significant bias against Russia.
Those with a blinkered vision see only what they want to see. No mystery there.
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth telling!! Haven't we seen enough
examples of the lying by Jewish owned neocon media, especially the Times? Now that the
Russia-gate fire is nearly put out, these guys are pumping this story. You really need to understand the depth of hatred the Jews have for Russia and Russians
that makes them like this. That's the only country /civilisation that got away from their
grasp just when they thought have got it. Not once, but twice in the last century.
But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see
that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope
others see that too.
Regardless of its veracity, this story will definitely hit Trump where it hurts -
chapeau to the individual(s) who conceived this work of fiction, if indeed it is so.
Again, whether or not performance bonuses* were actually offered by the GRU, has anyone
considered that this may still be a Russian Intelligence op?
Perhaps we should first ask whether the Kremlin wants to deal with a US under
another 4 years of Trump. From their FP POV, the huge uncertainty and instability they see
in the US now will surely be ramped up to a whole new level, in the event that he is
re-elected. And of course all hope that Trump may be able to improve the relationship with
Russia was dashed long ago, by Russiagate and the ongoing Russophobia among the Borg.
Jeffrey's mission in Syria is a case in point. At least the US Deep State is the devil they
know.
If the answer to the above question is "no" it must surely be a trivial matter for the
GRU to feed such a damaging story to Trump's enemies in the USIC.
* "bounties" is an emotive word, useful to Trump's enemies, evoking individual pay for an
individual death - real personal stuff. As others have pointed out the practicality of such
a scheme seems improbable. Surely it is more likely that any such incentive pay would be
for the group, upon coalition casualties confirmed in the aftermath of an attack. The
distinction may not seem important, but the Resistance media can be relied upon to use
language designed to inflict the most harm.
'Intel' without evidence is "bunk". Have we learned nothing from Chrissy Steele and the
Russiagate fiasco - I know a guy who knows a guy who said... the Russians are bad and
Donald Trump is an a......e. Bob Mueller and 18 pissed off democrats have concluded that
the Russians are systemically bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. 4 months before a
Presidential election intel sources have revealed to the NYT that the Russians are very
very bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. Ah yes, the New York Ridiculously Self Degraded
Times has broken another important story. I wonder why? Enough already...and yes, we have
made a systemic laughing stock of ourselves.
Oh, and remind me again of why we've been staying around Kabul - something about improving
the lot of women, or gays, or someone?
I'm personally not ready to "duck and cover" after reading this.
I have accepted the fact that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. I am watching
television news at night but no longer see the clock ticking as I turn it off and go to
sleep. So far, no one I know has taken to building a fallout shelter in his back yard.
I want an answer to this question: Whatever happened to the pillow and blanket I had to
bring to school and store in the school's basement in case we all had to retreat there and
be locked down in it during the bombing? Who do I go to to get reparations for the cost of
those items? (I was never given the opportunity to retrieve them when I graduated.) Did
Khrushchev have to take his shoe to a cobbler after using it to pound on the table while
threatening to bury us?
There's a rich history of stories about USI involvement in the drug trade. CIA was
involved in the heroin trade during the Viet Nam War. The Iran-Contra mess involved selling
Columbian cocaine to help finance Nicaraguan anti-Communist rebels. US involvement in the
Afghanistan drug trade has been talked about for years. As I said, there are no glitter
fartin' unicorns here.
The Iranian statistics do not lie. Transhipment of drugs across Iran from Afghanistan
has been increasing since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
The US Office of Foreign Asset Control, the US DIA, the CIA etc. are powerless to do
anything about that but are, evidently, all powerfull against USD transactions of the
Iranian government.
"... On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information." ..."
"... This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence, who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense. ..."
"... "Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the ministry said. ..."
"... Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting" in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul. ..."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has rejected a US media report
claiming Moscow offered to pay jihadi militants to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan. It said such 'fake news' merely betrays the
low skill levels of US spy agencies. Citing US intelligence officials – unnamed, of course – the New York Times reported that, last
year, Moscow had "covertly offered rewards" to Taliban-linked militants to attack American troops and their NATO allies
in Afghanistan.
On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information."
This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence,
who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense.
"Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the
ministry said.
Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting"
in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul.
US-led NATO troops have been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001. The campaign, launched in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, has cost Washington billions of dollars and resulted in the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives. Despite maintaining
a military presence for almost two decades, the US has failed to defeat the Taliban, which is still in control of vast swaths of
the country.
Moreover, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has compiled several reports detailing how
tens of millions of US taxpayers' funds have been spent on dubious regeneration projects.
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. ..."
"... "Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi. ..."
"... "So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" ..."
"... "It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," ..."
"... On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened. ..."
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based
in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on
Twitter @caitoz
Whenever one sees a news headline ending in
"US Intelligence Says", one should always mentally replace everything that comes before it with "Blah blah blah we're probably lying."
"Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill Troops, US Intelligence Says", blares the
latest viral headline from the New York Times . NYT's unnamed sources
allege that the GRU "secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan -- including
targeting American troops", and that the Trump administration has known this for months.
To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof
are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies
want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout
mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral.
In a post-Iraq-invasion world, the only correct response to unproven anonymous claims about a rival government by intelligence
agencies from the US or its allies is to assume that they are lying until you are provided with a mountain of independently verifiable
evidence to the contrary. The US has far too extensive a record of lying
about these things for any other response to ever be justified as rational, and its intelligence agencies consistently play a foundational
role in those lies.
Voices outside the mainstream-narrative control matrix have been calling these accusations what they are: baseless, lacking in
credibility, and not reflective of anything other than fair play, even if true.
"Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,"
tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.
"So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied
about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?"
tweeted author and analyst Jeffrey Kaye.
"It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine
for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," tweeted author and analyst Max Abrams.
On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been
speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow
going so far as to describe it as Putin offering
bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that
offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things
the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have
actually happened.
It is true, as many have been pointing out, that it would be fair play for Russia to fund violent opposition the the US in Afghanistan,
seeing as that's exactly what the US and its allies have been doing to Russia and its allies in Syria, and did to the Soviets in
Afghanistan via Operation Cyclone . It is also true
that the US military has no business in Afghanistan anyway, and any violence inflicted on US troops abroad is the fault of the military
expansionists who put them there. The US military has no place outside its own easily defended borders, and the assumption that it
is normal for a government to circle the planet with military bases is a faulty premise.
But before even getting into such arguments, the other side of the debate must meet its burden of proof that this has even happened.
That burden is far from met. It is literally the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. The New York Times has an extensive
history of pushing for new wars at every opportunity,
including the unforgivable
Iraq invasion , which killed a million people, based on lies. A mountain of proof is required before such claims should be seriously
considered, and we are very, very far from that.
I will repeat myself: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. I will repeat myself again: it is the US intelligence
community's job to lie to you. Don't treat these CIA press releases with anything but contempt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Trump himself has rubbished the NYT's Russia/Taliban story on Twitter today:
"Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called
attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an "anonymous source"
by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on
us..... " https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1277202159109537793
NYT exclusive: breaking, bombshell report, bombshell report, Russia pays Taliban to kill
U.S. Troops
The puppets dance for their puppet masters yet again. I was struck that in all of the MSM
responses on CNN and FOX every single host accepted it as an absolute fact that this was
true. If an unnamed source said something to a reporter at the NYT then it must have happened
in that way and the facts are irrefutable. Wow our 'journalists' are pathetic.
1. The guy who leaked this could be twisting a half or even quarter truth to embarrass
Trump, derail our withdrawal from Germany or Afghanistan ... nahh impossible. Our CIA guys
never have an agenda.
2. This could be disinformation against Russia ... nahh we are the good guys, that's not
how we roll.
The guy on CNN could not believe the WH statement that they were not briefed, 'it strains
credibility'. Maybe one POW made an outlandish claim to get better treatment and lower level
staff did not think the claim itself had enough credibility. Nope, it was leaked by an
Intelligence guy, therefore it must be true.
journalism is dead. buried, dug up, cremated and then scattered over a trash dump in
the U.S.
Projection, yet another time. An old and very effective dirty propaganda trick. Fake news outlet are intelligence services
controlled outlets.
Notable quotes:
"... Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan. ..."
"... The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with ' great reporting ' but are pure stenography. ..."
"... If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did: providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always unnamed of course. ..."
"... The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme: ..."
"... "The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their Taliban counterparts elsewhere." ..."
"... We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS, occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s. ..."
"... Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already. ..."
Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did
Not Respond' - NYT , WaPo Publish ItA. Pols , Jun 27 2020 14:34 utc |
1
There were allegations about emails that someone exfiltrated from the DNC and provided to
Wikileaks . Russia must have done it. The FBI and other intelligence services were
all over it. In the end no evidence was provided to support the claims.
There were allegations that Trump did not really win the elections. Russia must have done
it. The various U.S. intelligence service, together with their British friends, provided all
kinds of sinister leaks about the alleged case. In the end no evidence was provided to
support the claims.
A British double agent, Sergej Skirpal, was allegedly injured in a Russian attack on him.
The intelligence services told all kind of contradicting nonsense about the case. In the end
no evidence was provided to support the claims.
All three cases had two points in common. The were based on sources near to the U.S. and
British intelligence community. They were designed to increase hostility against Russia. The
last point was then used to sabotage Donald Trump's original plans for better relations with
Russia.
Now the intelligence services make another claim that fits right into the above
scheme.
Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up
by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers
in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies
it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the
claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan.
All that nonsense is again used to press against Trump's wish for better relations with
Russia. Imagine - Trump was told about these nonsensical claims and he did nothing about
it!
The same intelligence services and 'officials' previously paid bounties to bring innocent
prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, tortured them until they made false confessions and lied about
it. The same intelligence services and 'officials' lied about WMD in Iraq. The same
'intelligence officials' paid and pay Jihadis disguised as 'Syrian rebels' to kill Russian
and Syrian troops which defend their countries.
The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post
must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press
release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with '
great
reporting ' but are pure stenography.
Posted by b at
13:43 UTC |
Comments (3)If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay
bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did:
providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house
rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always
unnamed of course.
Biden is the intelligence services' ideal candidate -- an easily manipulated empty suit.
There's a reason why charges of Biden wrongdoing are as easily dismissed as nonsensical
charges against Trump and Russia get fabricated. And that reason is that the media is as
happy to be manipulated as Biden.
The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme:
"The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of
the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is
also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their
Taliban counterparts elsewhere."
We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS,
occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the
interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario
is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people
subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling
etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not
clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s.
This is disturbing, although this is precisely the quality of "intelligence" that gets
released to the public. The second disturbing aspect is that the article was opened to
comments, and as usually in such cases, the comments are full of fury at Russians and Trump,
and with the numbers of "recommend"'s reaching thousands. On non-Russian topics, if comments
are allowed, one can see a much wider spectrum of opinion, sometimes with huge numbers of
"recommend"'s to people who criticize and doubt the official positions. Here I lost patience
looking for any skeptical comment.
Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a
workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will
explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already.
"... You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you can't fool a lot of people for a long time. That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie. ..."
"... I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. ..."
"... The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices. ..."
"... Obivously western intelligence servies, NATO leak stuff to western msm to intimidate and censor political oppostion in every western country. ..."
"... Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like MOA. ..."
"... The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. ..."
"... George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread. It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia. This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up for A ..."
"... I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other imperialist myths. ..."
"... For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too! ..."
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in
Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the
facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles
reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been
killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who
had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers
in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over
events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what
happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'.
George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War
, Chapter 4
Last week saw an extreme intensifying of the warmongers' campaign against individuals who
publicly hold and defend a different view than the powers-that-be want to promote. The campaign
has a longer history but recently turned personal. It now endangers the life and livelihood of
real people.
In fall 2016 a
smear campaign was launched against 200 websites which did not confirm to NATO propaganda.
Prominent sites like Naked
Capitalism were among them as well as this site:
While the ProPornOT campaign was against websites the next and larger attack was a
general defaming of specific content.
The neoconservative Alliance For
Securing Democracy declared that any doubt of the veracity of U.S. propaganda stories
discussed on Twitter was part of a "Russian influence campaign". Their ' dashboard ' shows the most prominent hashtags and
themes tweeted and retweeted by some 600 hand-selected but undisclosed accounts. (I have reason
to believe that @MoonofA is among them.) The dashboard gave rise to an endless line of
main-stream stories faking concern over alleged "Russian influence". The New York
Times published several such stories including this
recent one :
Russia did not respond militarily to the Friday strike, but American officials noted a sharp
spike in Russian online activity around the time it was launched.
A snapshot on Friday night recorded a 2,000 percent increase in Russian troll activity
overall, according to Tyler Q. Houlton, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
One known Russian bot, #SyriaStrikes, had a 4,443 percent increase in activity while another,
#Damsucs, saw a 2,800 percent jump, Mr. Houlton said.
A person on Twitter, or a bot, is tagged by a chosen name led with an @-sign. Anything led
with a #-sign is a 'hashtag', a categorizing attribute of a place, text or tweet. Hashtags have
nothing to do with any "troll activity". The use of the attribute or hashtag #syriastrike
increased dramatically when a U.S. strike on Syria happened. Duh. A lot of people remarked on the
strikes and used the hashtag #syriastrike to categorize their remarks. It made it easier for
others to find information about the incident.
The hashtag #Damsucs does not exit. How could it have a 2,800% increase? It is obviously a
mistyping of #Damascus or someone may have used as a joke. In June 2013 an Associated
Press story famously
carried the dateline "Damsucs". The city was then under artillery attack from various Takfiri
groups. The author likely felt that the situation sucked.
The spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security Tyler Q. Holton, to which the
Times attributes the "bot" nonsense, has a Twitter account under his name and also tweets as
@SpoxDHS. Peter Baker, the NYT author, has some 150,000 followers on Twitter and tweets several
times per day. Holton and Tyler surely know what @accounts and #hashtags are.
One suspects that Holton used the bizzare
statistic of the infamous ' Dashboard '
created by the neoconservative, anti-Russian lobby . The dashboard creators asserted that the
use of certain hashtags is a sign of 'Russian bots'. On December 25 the dashboard showed that
Russian trolls and bots made extensive use of the hashtag #MerryChristmas to undermine America's
moral.
One of the creators of the dashboard, Clint Watts, has since confessed that it is mere
bullshit :
"I'm not convinced on this bot thing," said Watts, the cofounder of a project that is widely
cited as the main, if not only, source of information on Russian bots. He also called the
narrative "overdone."
As government spokesperson Holton is supposed to spout propaganda that supports the
government's policies. But propaganda is ineffective when it does not adhere to basic realities.
Holton is bad at his job. Baker, the NYT author, did even worse. He repeated the
government's propaganda bullshit without pointing out and explaining that it obviously did not
make any sense. He used it to further his own opinionated, false narrative. It took a day for the
Times to issue a paritial correction of the fact free tale.
With the situation in Syria developing in favor of the Syrian people, with dubious government
claims around the Skripal affair in Salisbury and the recent faked 'chemical attack' in Douma the
campaign against dissenting reports and opinions became more and more personal.
Last December the Guardian commissioned a hatchet
job against Vanessa Beeley
and Eva Bartlett . Beeley and
Bartlett extensively reported
(vid) from the ground in Syria on the British propaganda racket "White Helmets". The
Guardian piece defended the 'heros' of the White Helmets and insinuated that both
journalists were Russian paid stooges.
In March the self proclaimed whistle-blower and blowhard Sibel Edmonds of Newsbud
launched a lunatic broadside smear attack
(vid) against Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett. The Corbett Report debunked (vid) the nonsense. (The debunking
received 59,000 views. Edmonds public wanking was seen by less than 23,000 people.)
Some time ago the CIA propaganda outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Europe
started a 'fact-checking' website and named it Polygraph.info . (Some satirist or a clueless intern
must have come up with that name. No country but the U.S. believes that the unscientific results
of polygraph tests have any relation to truthfulness. To any educated non-U.S. citizen the first
association with the term 'polygraph' is the term 'fake'.)
Ben Nimmo, the Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab, studies the exploits of "Ian56" and similar accounts on Twitter. His recent
article in the online publication Medium profiles such fake pro-Kremlin accounts and
demonstrates how they operate.
...
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is a
Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian troll'
accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have know that
@ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American-Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans in
Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide performances
on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a 'Russian troll'
and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll' opinions.
Earlier this month Newsweek also
targeted the journalists Beeley and Bartlett and smeared a group of people who had traveled
to Syria as 'Assad's pawns'.
On April 14 Murdoch's London Times took personal aim at the members of a group of
British academics who assembled to scientificly investigate dubious claims against Syria. Their
first investigation report though, was
about the Skripal incident in Salisbury. The London Times also targeted Bartlett and
Beeley. The piece was leading on page one with the
headline: "Apologists for Assad working in universities". A page two splash and an editorial
complemented the full fledged attack on the livelihood of the scientists.
Tim Hayward, who initiated the academic group, published
a (too) mild response.
On April 18 the NPR station Wabenews
smeared the black activists Anoa Changa and Eugene Puryear for appearing on a Russian TV
station. It was the begin of an ongoing, well concerted campaign launched with at least seven
prominent smear pieces issued on a single day against the opposition to a wider war on Syria.
On April 19 the BBCtook aim at Sarah Abdallah , a Twitter account with over 130,000
followers that takes a generally pro Syrian government stand. The piece also attacked Vanessa
Beeley and defended the 'White Helmets':
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad
messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US
Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
...
The Sarah Abdallah account is, according to a recent study by the online research firm
Graphika, one of the most influential social media accounts in the online conversation about
Syria, and specifically in pushing misinformation about a 2017 chemical weapons attack and the
Syria Civil Defence, whose rescue workers are widely known as the "White Helmets".
...
Graphika was commissioned to prepare a report on online chatter by The Syria Campaign , a
UK-based advocacy group organisation which campaigns for a democratic future for Syria and
supports the White Helmets.
The Syria Campaign Ltd. is a
for profit 'regime change' lobby which, like the White Helmets it promotes, is sponsored with
millions of British and U.S. taxpayer money.
Brian Whitaker, a former Middle East editor for the Guardian ,
alleged that Sarah Abdullah has a 'Hizbullah connection'. He assumes that from two terms she
used which point to a southern Lebanese heritage. But south Lebanon is by far not solely
Hizbullah and Sarah Abdallah certainly does not dress herself like a pious Shia. She is
more likely a Maronite or secular whatever. Exposing here as 'Hizbullah' can easily endanger her
life. Replying to Whitaker the British politician George Galloway asked:
George Galloway @georgegalloway - 14:50 UTC - Replying to
@Brian_Whit
Will you be content when she's dead Brian?
...
Will you be content Brian when ISIS cut off her head and eat her heart? You are beneath
contempt. Even for a former Guardian man
Whitaker's smear piece was not even researched by himself. He plagiarized it, without naming
his source,
from Joumana Gebara, a CentCom approved Social Media
Advisor to parts of the Syrian 'opposition'. Whitaker is prone to fall for scams like the 'White
Helmets'. Back in mid 2011 he promoted the "Gay Girl in
Damascus", a scam by a 40 year old U.S. man with dubious financial
sources who pretended to be a progressive Syrian woman.
Also on April 19 the Guardian
stenographed a British government smear against two other prominent Twitter accounts:
Russia used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the
Salisbury poisoning, according to fresh Whitehall analysis. Government sources said experts had
uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Russia-based accounts
since the attack, – many of which were identifiable as automated bots.
Notice that this idiotic % increase claim, without giving a base number, is similar to the one
made in the New York Times piece quoted above. It is likely also based on the lunatic
'dashboard'.
[C]ivil servants identified a sharp increase in the flow of fake news after the Salisbury
poisoning, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.
One bot, @Ian56789, was sending 100 posts a day during a 12-day period from 7 April, and
reached 23 million users, before the account was suspended. It focused on claims that the
chemical weapons attack on Douma had been falsified, using the hashtag #falseflag. Another,
@Partisangirl, reached 61 million users with 2,300 posts over the same 12-day period.
The prime minister discussed the matter at a security briefing with fellow Commonwealth
leaders Malcolm Turnbull, Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau earlier this week. They were
briefed by experts from GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre about the security
situation in the aftermath of the Syrian airstrikes.
The political editor of the Guardian , Heather Steward, admitted that her 'reporting'
was a mere copy of government claims:
A day earlier Ian56/@Ian56789 account with 35,000 followers had suddenly been blocked by
Twitter. Ben Nimmo was extremely happy about this success.
But after many users protested to the Twitter censors the account was revived.
Neither Ian, nor Partisangirl, are 'bots' or have anything to do with Russia. Partisangirl,
aka Syria Girl, is the twitter moniker of Maram Susli, a Syrian-Australian scientist specialized
in quantum chemistry. She was already interviewed on Australian TV (vid) four years
ago and has been back since. She has published videos of herself talking about Syria on Youtube and on Twitter and held
presentations on Syria at several international conferences. Her account is marked as 'verified'
by Twitter. Any cursory search would have shown that she is a real person.
The claim of bots and the numbers of their tweets the government gave to the Guardian
and Sky News are evidently false . With just a few clicks
the Guardian and Sky News 'journalists' could have debunked the British government
claims. But these stenograhers do not even try and just run with whatever nonsense the government
claims. Sky News even manipulated the picture of Partisangirl's Twitter homepage in the
video and screenshot above. The original shows Maram Susli speaking about Syrian refugees at a
conference in Germany. The picture provides that she is evidently a living person and not a
'bot'. But Sky News did not dare to show that. It would have debunked the government's
claim.
After some negative feed back on social media Sky News contacted the 'Russian bot' Ian
and invited him to a live interview
(vid). Ian Shilling, a wakeful British pensioner, managed to deliver a few zingers against the
government and Sky News . He also published a
written response:
I have been campaigning against the Neocons and the Neocon Wars since January 2002, when I
first realised Dick Cheney and the PNAC crowd were going to use 9/11 as the pretext to launch a
disastrous invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with Russia. It has EVERYTHING to do with
the massive lies constantly told by the UK & US governments about their illegal Wars of
Aggression.
...
Brian Whitaker could not hold back. Within the 156,000 tweets Ian wrote over seven years
Whitaker found one(!)
with a murky theory (not a denial) about the Holocaust. He alleged that Ian believes in
'conspiracy theories'. Whitaker then linked to and discussed one Conspirador Norteño who
peddles 'Russian bots' conspiracy theories. Presumably Whitaker did not get the consp-irony of
doing such.
On the same day as the other reports the British version of the Huffington Post
joined the Times in its earlier smear against British academics, accusing Professor
Hayward and Professor Piers Robinson of "whitewashing war crimes". They have done no such thing.
Vanessa Beeley was additionally attacked.
Also on the 19th the London Times aimed at another target. Citizen Halo , a well known Finnish grandma, was declared to be a
'Russian troll' based on Ben Nimmo's pseudo-scientific trash, for not believing in the Skripal
tale and the faked 'chemical attack' in Syria. The Times doubted her nationality and
existence by using quotes around her as a "Finnish activist".
Meanwhile the defense editor of the Times , Deborah Haynes, is stalking Valentina Lisitsa on
Twitter. A fresh smear-piece against the pianist is surely in the works.
The obviously organized campaign against critical thinking in Britain extended beyond the
Atlantic. While the BBC , Guardian, HuffPo, Times and Sky News published
smear pieces depicting dissenting people as 'Russian bots', the Intercept pushed a piece
by Mehdi Hasan bashing an amorphous 'left' for rejecting a U.S. war on Syria:
Dear Bashar al-Assad Apologists: Your Hero Is a War Criminal Even If He Didn't Gas Syrians
.
Mehdi Hasan is of course eminently qualified to write such a piece. Until recently he worked
for Al Jazeerah , the media outlet of the Wahhabi dictatorship of Qatar which supports the
Qatari sponsored al-Qaeda in its war against Syria. The Mehdi Hasan's piece repeats every false
and debunked claim that has been raised against the Syrian government as evidence for the Syrian
president's viciousness. Naturally many of the links he provides point back to Al
Jazeerah's propaganda. A few years ago Mehdi Hasan tried to get a job with the conservative
British tabloid Daily Mail . The Mail did not want him. During a later TV discussion Hasan
slammed the Daily Mail for its reporting and conservative editorial position. The paper
responded by
publishing his old job application. In it Mehdi Hasan emphasized his own conservative
believes:
I am also attracted by the Mail's social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family,
abortion and teenage pregnancies.
A conservative war-on-Syria promoter is bashing an anonymous 'left' which he falsely accuses
of supporting Assad when it takes a stand against imperial wars. Is that a 'progressive' Muslim
Brotherhood position? (Added: Stephen Gowans and Kurt Nimmo
respond to Hasan's screed.)
On the same day Sonali Kolhatkar at Truthdig , as pseudo-progressive as the
Intercept , published a quite similar piece: Why
Are Some on the Left Falling for Fake News on Syria? . She bashes the 'left' - without citing
any example - for not falling for the recent scam of the 'chemical attack' in Douma and for
distrusting the U.S./UK government paid White Helmets. The comments against the piece are
lively.
Those working in the media are up in arms over alleged fake news and they lament the loss of
paying readership. But they have only themselves to blame. They are the biggest creators of fake
news and provider of government falsehood. Their attacks on critical readers and commentators are
despicable.
Until two years ago Hala Jabar was foreign correspondent in the Middle East for the Sunday
Times . After fourteen years with the paper and winning six awards for her work she was 'made
redundant' for her objective reporting on Syria. She remarks on the recent media push against
truth about Syria and the very personal attacks against non-conformist opinions:
In my entire career, spanning more than three decades of professional journalism, I have
never seen MSM resolve to such ugly smear campaigns & hit pieces against those questioning
mainstream narratives, with a different view point, as I have seen on Syria, recently.
.2/ This is a dangerous manoeuvre , a witch hunt in fact, aimed not only at character
assassination, but at attempting to silence those who think differently or even sway from
mainstream & state narrative.
.3/ It would have been more productive, to actually question the reason why more & more
people are indeed turning to alternative voices for information & news, than to dish out ad
hominem smears aimed at intimidating by labelling alternative voices as conspirators or
apologists.
.4/ The journalists, activists, professors & citizens under attack are presenting an
alternative view point. Surely, people are entitled to hear those and are intelligent enough to
make their own judgments.
.5/ Or is there an assumption, (patronizing, if so), that the tens of thousands of people
collectively following these alternative voices are too dumb & unintelligent to reach their
own conclusions by sifting through the mass information being dished at them daily from all
sides?
.6/ Like it or hate it, agree or disagree with them, the bottom line is that the people
under attack do present an alternative view point. Least we forget, no one has a monopoly on
truth. Are all those currently launching this witch hunt suggesting they do?
The governments and media would like to handle the war on Syria like they handled the war in
Spain. They want reports without "any relation to the facts". The media want to "retail the lies"
and eager propagandists want to "build emotional superstructures over events that never
happened."
The new communication networks allow everyone to follow the war on Syria as diligently as
George Orwell followed the war in Spain in which he took part. We no longer have to travel to see
the differences of what really happens and what gets reported in the main stream press. We can
debunk false government claims with freely available knowledge.
The governments, media and their stenographers would love to go back to the old times when
they were not plagued by reports and tweets from Eva, Vanessa, Ian, Maram and Sarah or by
blogposts like this one. The vicious campaign against any dissenting report or opinion is a sorry
attempt to go back in time and to again gain the monopoly on 'truth'.
It is on us to not let them succeed.
Posted by b on April 21, 2018 at 23:02 UTC |
Permalink
next page " Excellent.
The good news about both The Intercept and Truthdig pieces is that the comments quickly showed
that readers knew what the publishers were up to.
The Intercept seemed to have removed Hasan's obscene act of prostitution within a day.
The reality is that we simply have to expect the imperialists, now reduced to propaganda and
domestic repression, to act in this way: there is no point in attempting to shame them and they
never did believe in journalistic principles or standards or ethics. They are the scum who
serve a cannibalistic system for good wages and a comfortable life style- that is what the
'middle class' always did do and always will.
No longer is it possible to control TV, Radio and printed newspapers and use them to set the
message. There are now an almost infinite set of channels including youtube, twitter, blogs,
podcasts,streamed radio... It's like there is a public bitcoin/bitnewsledger where new
information only gets written into the ledger if it is authenicated by sufficient
endorsements.
In the past, a lie could travel around the world before the truth got its shoes on (Mark Twain
I believe) but the truth is catching up. We are in the midst of the great changeover where
older people still rely on traditional information channels yet younger internet enabled
peoplecan leverage the new channels more effectively to educate themselves.
Western propagandists are freaking out because nobody believes their lies anymore. The more
they freak out, the more we know they have lost the narrative.
I just fear for the safety of these independent journalists. It is not beneath the deep
state to assassinate their enemies. These people need to be very careful.
For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that
dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's
transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this
category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)
The hysterical, side-splitting laughter over this chicken-choking, circle-jerking drivel
will echo in eternity. Galactic stupidity simply doesn't get any more cosmic, except perhaps
awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama.
This is a fight between Deep States of the Rothschild-UK 'Octopus,' US-centric
Rockefeller-Kochs, Russian (itself split between competing and intertwined Anglo-American
clans/Eurasianists vs Altanticists) and China (also divided between sovereignty oriented
Shanghai and Rothschild affiliated Hong Kong which was founded upon the opium trade in
cooperation with the UK-Octopus).
The main point of contention is whether we have a hard or soft landing as the New World
Order is born, with the UK-Octopus needing to instigate an epic crisis so as to bury countless
trillions of worthless derivatives it sits upon, specifically seeking to collapse the USD as a
global fiat and use the ensiung chaos to assist the Chinese as they establish an unasailable
Yuan fiat. A war with Russia will bring the US-centric Deep State to it's knees and so this
forms the basis of the not-so secret alliance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, while
China attempts to remain neutral since Xi prefers a smooth transition since the US-centric
group may well launch a nuclear false flag attack on the Korean peninsula, thus irradiating the
region and dooming the potential for a Chinese dominated century, should the interests of yhis
group be ignored.
All gloves are off and the dispostions of various players are suddenly crystal clear after
the firing of Octopus agent Tillerson by Trump via twitter led immediately to the launching of
operation 'Novichok,' and was followed up with an attempted series of false flags in East
Ghouta which were planned so as to bring the US and Russia to war.
Other important players include the US military (itself divided between Octopus NATO and
US-centric Pentagon), the CIA, which is always on all sides of any conflict but was until
recently headed by Koch protege Mike Pompeo, as well as smaller Arab, Persian and Turkish Deep
States all jockeying for advantage and position. Even the Vatican is included and said to be
divided between Polish Cardinals on one side, with German, Italian and many Spanish speaking
Cardinals as opponents. There are other Deep States as well and in every instance they are
divided between one of the two main parties and themselves to one or another degree.
Media and social control is mainly the preserve of the UK Octopus, so as all of us have
understood for some time, anything included within it, from the NYTimes to most of Hollywood,
is completely worthless. Alternative media was created as an alternative to Octopus media,
while Trump takes to twitter so as to bypass their control.
I feel like a US voter forced to choose between Republicans and Democrats, but with the
promised 'Blue Wave' coming in November when Congressional elections are due, certain to be
impeached Donald Trump and his US-centric backers have a very short time frame in which to
change the score.
Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles
conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes.
Syria is really the unifying theme in all these attacks.
I congratulate Bernhard on yet another excellent piece of investigative journalism. My comment
is not intended to criticise or take away from it, but only to point out that Orwell's quote
was taken out of context, in the sense that although he remarks on partisan propaganda, he says
that it is unimportant, since "the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government
presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were." On the
other hand, the lies of the pro-NATO press are important because unlike the partisan lies told
by leftist parties during the Spanish Civil War, today's NATO lies are the equivalent of the
official fascist propaganda of that time: they distort and hide the main issues. Here is the
full quote from the link that B has diligently provided:
I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, 'History stopped in 1936', at which he nodded in
immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more
particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever
correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports
which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an
ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete
silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as
cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of
imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager
intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in
fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened
according to various 'party lines'. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant.
It concerned secondary issues -- namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the
Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in
Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was
not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their
backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention
their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could
not have been otherwise.
As a given group loses its grip on power, it tends to employ ever more extreme tactics. This
explains the recent behavior of players like the US government, the UK government, the American
mainstream media and various think tanks. What other extreme behavior should we expect from
such a cabal? After all, they've already shown contempt for conditionally protected freedoms-
all of them- and a willingness to manufacture any narrative they want in order to further their
aims of conquest and profiteering. This whole mess could spiral out of control in countless
ways with terrifying consequences.
@15 Yes but I'm not sure how relevant Orwell's quote is to today. Do we even have a 'left-wing'
anymore? Or a Comintern for that matter? Even fascism wears a smiley face. Seems to me that
what we have is a tightly controlled MSM. That control may be slipping but we have yet to see a
replacement.
Those of us at MoA who are regulars may feel a certain level of complacency based on the level
of discourse here but I assure you that most Americans are still very much zombie followers of
whatever the TV and other media tell them. I believe that there is a strong possibility that MoA and like sites will become the focus
of paid narrative pushers and if that is not successful there are other ways to make b and our
lives difficult.
If b is ever knocked offline for some reason and needs help I encourage him to email his
readers with potential strategies to show/provide support. Thanks again and again for your web site b.
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Many Westerners would recognize this phrase but many of them don't understand that there
-IS- a war (the new Cold War). The longstanding law that prevented government propaganda in the US was revoked several
years ago.
U.S Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
This type of tyranny has been going on forever in the US. Take A. Lincoln.
More than 14,000 civilians were arrested under martial law during the war throughout the
Union. Abraham Lincoln did so because they expressed views critical of Lincoln or his war. It's the same-o. Different faces same crap.
b- I am sorry to see their attacks on you, if things do go sideways please contact me if I can
be of help in any way.
Do you know what has happened to Tucker Carlson, he has been such a strong voice for truth that
I am concerned for him.
Stay strong and thank you for all you do in support of the truth.
Sure, there are more people that see the lies and bullshit for what they are. Still, seeing it
is not enough. What really matters now is to fully wipe out the mainstream media, to make it
completely extinct, and therefore seeing they're full of shit is only the prerequisite to
pondering how to actually bankrupt and destroy them. That's what everyone who's not fully on
board with the Western regimes' and bankers' propaganda should be thinking about. How to
convince people not only to stop buying their lies, but to stop buying them at all, how to cut
down the vast majority of their readership/viewers to the point they don't matter anymore.
Thank you b. This a very important subject. It wouldn't surprise me if a false flag happened
that would be aimed at censuring all alternative news. This might be centered around a
decoupling of east from west, perhaps when the current financial crisis explodes. Oh, has
anyone heard from Tucker Carlson lately?
You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you
can't fool a lot of people for a long time.
That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie.
I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking
specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the
collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their
superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. That's why,
for example, the USG and Downing Street haven't lost significant credibility domestically after
Iraq and after Libya. This is a dark social pact: people live the lies only to sleep well at
night and claim plausible deniability after; they only wish it to be over quickly and at the
least human cost from their side (every coffin that comes back to their community from the
Middle East is a crack in the illusion). They believe in Russiagate because, deep down, they
don't want to believe they were capable of electing someone like Trump and, mainly, because
they know their economies are failing, and the only solution is to invade other countries/prop
up the war industry.
Smearing people for appearing on RT! Americans who prattle on about freedom and democracy are
pressuring other not to do this or that which is to inhibit their freedom.
Don't they know it makes them look like dictators without portfolio?
Great article, b. I am a relative newcomer to MoA, having found it through Caitlin Johnstone
(Rogue Journalist), but in a short time, I have come to rely heavily on it for "hidden" news
and incisive analysis. Yes, independent news outlets are vital sources of truth, but their
reach is still tiny compared to that of the Empire and its toads in the media. The well
organized smear campaign against those who refuse to bow down is a frightening development
indeed.
Thanks b for your outstanding dissecting! The Information War is complex yet still remains
simple--all that's required is a critically thinking approach for any personally unconfirmed
sources and the data presented followed by the willingness to ask questions, no matter how
uncomfortable. Such a disciplined mind was once the paramount goal for those seeking wisdom,
but such pursuits are deemed passé, unrequired in the Digital Age. But Big Lie Media's
been working its evil for decades despite many calling out the lies. Funny how the two big
former communist nations are now more credible than the West and expressly seek honest and
open--Win-Win--relationships based on trust and equality. The Moral Table at play during Cold
War 1 is flipped with the Outlaw US Empire being the Evil Empire. And the Evil Empire can't
stand its own nakedness and its oozing social sores.
The liar is often agitated and nervous whereas one with the facts rests easy and remains
calm. In the run up to their summit, note how Trump is already agitated and nervous, already
prefacing his lies to come, whereas Kim is easy and calm, setting the table. Shrillness and
hysteria are the similar signs provided by media liars and is almost always fact-free, supposed
"sources" anonymous.
A magisterial piece of journalism, b. Congratulations, and thank you.
~~
Spain. Orwell. Fascism.
I was born decades after the Spanish Civil War, and to be very honest I never knew much
about it, nor have ever learned since. But Guernica I knew about, even
as a young teenager in school. The culture was shocked into remembering forever that there was
a lie involved with Guernica. That's all I ever really knew, was that Spain was a lie,
underneath which a massacre lay.
They say it was the humanitarian and artistic type of people who kept the truth of Spain
alive against the propaganda of the fascists. I don't know. I believe as I said the other day
that propaganda only works to crowd out the truth, so that people are not exposed to the truth.
But propaganda doesn't work in a battle against the truth, when people are exposed to both
sides of the story.
If you were running a scam based on fake news, and one day you had to make allegations using
this very term, and play your "fake news" card on the table in a round of betting that was
merely one round in a long game - if you did this, you'd be a bad card player, or one driven to
the corner and getting extremely close to leaving the table.
If your playing partner suddenly had to show the "false flag" card on the surface of the
table for the whole game to see - yet another secret hole card exposed and now worthless
forever - you could well think your game was finished. And it is - barring a few nasty
tricks...which will be recorded and placed into the game as IOU's.
Don't anybody be part of that collateral damage - be well. And instead, let's collect on
those IOU's. The game is almost over. Many people will appear to say that the players cannot be
beat. But they are with the losers. We are the players.
I wholeheartedly second your suggestion. I think the battle against the truth by the deep
States everywhere has only begun. They will not stop at smearing individual posters or
sites.
I do think we all need to start becoming more aware of alternatives, to YouTube (how's
DTube?), Twitter (gab?), Facebook, Google (several alternatives) etc. But that will not be
enough because I fear that in time the IP providers will come under pressure too - in all the
western countries, especially. And the domain providers 9we all know them), followed by blog
platforms such as WorldPress. I am not saying it's easy to curtail all of those, but they will
try, as sure as the sun sets in the West.
Of course, the biggest attacks will be mounted against anonymous commenters and posters.
That's already in the works at several outlets. The idea is of course that by stripping off
anonimity people will self-censor for fear of repercussions to their real life selves.
There are people working on alternative platforms of all sorts. I am somewhat hopeful about
user owned sites though these efforts are nascent. I hope commenters here will share what they
know of alternatives, even knowing this won't be an easy battle. After all, Twitter owes its
popularity to well, its popularity. Same with Facebook or Instagram or youTube. Therein lies
the rub - it won't be easy to wean users from these platforms as many start-ups found out. That
however should not mean that we shouldn't try. More and more Twitter users for example are
cross-posting on gab, and several youTubers started uploading also to Dtube. neither site is
ideal, I know. But neither was Twitter when it started.
The real aim of propaganda is to persuade the politicians and not the public. One man in their
middle wants to start a war and the media make sure that his or her fellow politicians will
hear no other story and make support the only possibility. That's why people like us have to be
vilified, so that all these politicians can invent an excuse for themselves and turn their head
away. What we think really doesn't matter because we are not the ones in control. They only
have to convince the Colin Powells and Frank Timmermans's.
The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists
etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and
control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices.
Amber Rudd
the UK Home Secretary has been banging on about Russian cyber attcks for the past couple of
months. Whilst based on the history of UK Government IT projects I couldn't expect the UK alone
to be capable of implementing any meaningful censorship scheme (they have a track record of
producing so many multi-billion pound national IT project disasters) but with the coordinated
help of the US and others they might just be able to put up enough censorship barriers to be
able to get back to their original plans (removing Assad and whatever else they have in mind).
False-flag chemical attacks haven't quite worked out to plan, but add in a false-flag cyber
attack that apparently disables some of the UK (and/or US/EU) vital services and that should be
enough for them to convince the plebs and sufficient MP's that it has become absolutely
necessary to block Russain and other media and internet sites and force the owners of many
social media channels to disable long lists of people with alternative views.
Prop or Not is NOT a 'friendly neighbourhood' anything. It was exposed a while ago as being a
joint state propaganda project between the CIA and West Ukraine, with the goal of spreading
anti-Russia disinformation, and employing the collusion of some no-integrity US propaganda rags
like The Daily Beast.
My question is their motivation and timing. Why does the rhetoric seem to increase after
the latest attack? Why care if 10% of the population doesn't follow their narrative now? Are
they preparing for a new round of kinetic action? Or do they simply believe their management of
the narrative needs more investment?
If people are going to rely on social media feeds for anything other than information on what
their friends and family are up to, then they are opening themselves up to being manipulated
easily and with a minimum of actual effort.
You no longer need to own a newspaper or a broadcast network to do so.
Ultimately people with a concience and some integrity will realize that something is awry. I'm
no spring chicken and have been on the net for nearly 20 years. There are more ' old ' people
surfing the net than initially may be apparent. As life passes by people become much more
attuned to bullsh*t. T. May's husband is on the board of a large British Armaments company. No
doubt her ministers are all in on many scams. She is a very mediocre character, a fool as her
time as home secretary demonstrated and was only voted in place so as to do the bidding of
others. And in my opinion, when I say others I mean she is the western harlot who jumps when
anyone pulls her string. They say that if you tell a lie often enough people believe it to be
the truth. Not necessarily. There are so many holes in the Skripal and Syrian stories that only
someone who doesn't want to have their view challenged will believe them. The stories are
falling apart and as they do, so does the credibility and trust of the western MSM and Politik.
The reason the Germans and others refused to join in, is I suspect, they realize that in part,
because once that is lost, it takes a great deal more to recover it. The Skripal case and the
latest Syrian faked gas attack is the start of the end for T. May and her govt.
Good comments, especially psychohistorian about being prepared to jump to alternative platforms
... Perhaps Russian ones?
What I was referencing in comment 5 is this relatively new desire by the 'powers that be'
for purity, for absolutely no one from 'our side' dissenting against the mainstream (and
completely bonkers in its anti-Russian extremism) narrative. This is not like the pre-digital
age, when small-circulation real leftist publications were not subject to mainstream and
official government extermination campaigns. And I don't think this is simply because of
digital age reach, because the readership for the real alternative media's left/anti-imperial
perspective doesn't engage enough people to be meaningful in terms of power and elections. At
least in the US; less certain about elsewhere.
There's something angry, extreme, and extremely insecure about the psychology of the Western
ruling class right now. My bet is that because of that insecurity they won't be so dangerous to
Russia/China in the years to come, but instead the anger will be directed at internal
left/anti-militarist dissenters. For some reason our reality bugs the sh!t out of them despite
our small numbers.
Until recently I used to read articles at both The Intercept and at Truthdig, but have since
realized both of these 'news' outlets actively censor posts that are too accurate, too
insightful of what the US government and MSM are doing in Syria and how they are manipulating
public opinion with the White Helmets, staged false gas attacks, etc. I don't trust Pierre
Omidyar, the philanthropist behind The Intercept, he has questionable political alliances. I
have had many of my posts at both Truthdig and The Intercept censored even though they were
entirely within comment rules. The Intercept has a lot of really BAD journalists posting crap
there, like this ass clown Mehdi Hasan. Even Glenn Greenwald, a multi millionaire, is suspect.
Both of these websites are psuedo-left and should not be trusted!
From the resistance trench with love , Apr 22 2018 11:40 utc |
52
....attacks on critical readers and commentators are despicable..
Indeed, but "the one free of sin to throw the first stone" ....
From my experience at several supposed "alternative media", most of them somehow pro-Russian
in the sense that they do not promote the sick warmongerism coming from the US and UK
stablishments against Russia and its allies in Syria and against Syria herself, every site has
its biases and slandering attacks by the owners of the blogs or by the "community" os
sycophants residing there are everyday bread for any newcomer who could express a bit of
dissent against the general editorial view.
I mayself have been obliged to change my nickname several times already to avoid attacks or
banning/censorship, when my position about Syrai and Russia does not differ almost in the least
with that of the people mentioned above who are being object of smearing campaign by the
MSM....and this has happened to me in the supposed pro-Russian "alt-media"....
Thus, I would recommend to apply a bit of self-criticism and reflect about how anyone of us
are probably contributing to the same effort of the bullies mentioned above against mainly
common citizens who only try to commit themselves to spread some of the truth they are finding
online through research and intensive reading, and try to offer an alternative point of view or
simply debunk the usual nonsense especially against certain ideologies, mostly spreaded by US
commenters.....
I noticed the part about Ian Shillilng being accused of denying the Holocaust or implying it
was a govt conspiracy.
I find that interesting, because a co-worker asked me out to the blue "Do you even believe
the Holocaust happened?" It's a strange question with no relation to Russiagate, yet pops up a
lot so it clearly has an agenda. The question made no sense but I did recognized it as a
familiar attack by the warmongers. My response was to to respond to such a ridiculous,
dishonest question and I ignored it.
He went to ask if I was "stupid" for not seeing that Mueller's indictments over lying to the
FBI and tax evasion/money laundering in Ukraine are NOT are not same thing as proving Russia
meddled to deny Hillary her Presidency.
Thanks for the article b.
As painful as it is to watch the increasing attempts at censoring non-msm voices, we can take
solace in the fact that, like a cornered rat, the establishment has no other option left but an
all-out, full-retard attack on anyone not toeing the line. While the damage they are doing is
real, this should be balanced with the fact that this attack comes out of weakness and not
strength: they are the ones "losing", and knowledge of that reality makes them increasingly
unhinged.
At first I thought this is some kind of joke. Than I watched few times, I still believe CNN
guy is in some kind of mission here, let's say to distract its viewers from existential matters
that grips ordinary people in the US. His insistence on the "Russians" is illogical at
first...this woman appear to be serious but when it comes to CNN everything is set-up, not just
everyone can come to CNN, period. No facts involved the conversation is about NOTHING, that is
the US national narrative being imposed by the ruling class trough various media. Just like
"attack" on Syria and Syria's gas attack. There were none, there were no cruise missile fired,
there were no downed ones! CNN's role is also to entertain its audience as well, everything but
not talk about social and economic issues. In other words to indoctrinate - shift attention,
not to ask unpleasant questions.
The NYT and NPR are warmonger institutions. It is sad that ppl who consider themselves to be
liberals, democrats, blue team (anti-war?- that's a stretch!) embrace these institutions as
purveyors of truth or even real news.
I don't feel that the quote is out of context. Yes, you show that Orwell clearly didn't
consider it a big deal at that time, but what is happening now is that what he describes is
omnipresent, the main stream of information we get, there is nothing else if you don't search
for alternatives. It is beyond doubt that Orwell, in the present context, would never have
added what he added in that book.
So in that light I feel the quote is extremely relevant and a good start of the article.
I want to express my thanks for this site and am really glad I was pointed towards MoA by
other sources of real information.
Meanwhile, the same western media give free pass to liberal warcriminals like Macron's France
that just today call for permanent illegal occupation of Syria - after illegally bombing it.
But no, it is people like us who call out this BS that gets silenced and harassed by the
same ignorant western media/"journalists" along with the western deep state spy networks!
What an excellent source of information the MoA site offers those of us who are seeking the
truth and living in an Empire full of lies.Over the past few months, I have perused this site
regularly and always find it very helpful in gaining a better and more concise understanding
of
what is really going on in our world.
I am also astounded at how helpful it is for me to read the comments of so many who are
regulars here.
The courtesy and level of intellectual dialog that goes on here in the comments section is a
rare thing indeed! We all must fight for truth for the sake of our families and loved ones.
"Fake" and "Genuine" are used to describe the video with the water being poured over people.
Fisk calls them genuine because the video was taped in the place where it pretends to be, not
in a film set or a location where nothing was going on. It was filmed in the real hospital with
real doctors, nurses and victims.
The video therefore is real (not staged), but the claim that people are suffering from gas
wounds is false.
You can thus also say that the video is fake: it is said to show victims of a gas attack, while
the doctor says they were suffering from suffocation, and only when someone shouted "gas", did
people start hosing each other down (which as someone posted in another article, would have
only made things worse if they had chlorine on them). As evidence of a gas attack, the video is
fake.
As long as a person is not claiming that the video shows victims of a real gas attack
aftermath, we're all on the same side I guess.
The response is of course to more eagerly call out the neocons propangada, western media
propaganda and so forth,
get a twitter account, get a blog, lets multiply this movement, because these people will of
course not stop at destroying peoples lives in the newspapers, they will call for censorship,
registrations and sooner or later jail for these views.
Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is
much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We
may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like
MOA.
The UK has no credibility left now. May's farcical handling of the Brexit negs has exposed
her as little more than a Tory mouthpiece, parroting party bon mots whilst having no clue where
she is heading. And I suspect her civil servants haven't, either!
The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus
away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. But what is alarming was her open
support for attacks on Syria. It's been known for some time that the UK has special forces
operating in Syria covertly; May's tub-thumping pretty much clarified that the Uk is as
determined as Washington and that Rothschild puppet Macron to force a regime change in
Syria.
You said she must go. I said the same thing last September after the fall-out from the June
election and other foot-in-mouth incidents: she'd be gone before year end. How wrong I was. She
has figures in the background protecting her.
Crushing dissent goes completely against 'liberal values' which is about the only high ground
left for the humanitarian regime changers a.k.a the Franquistas. So that is not going to
happen. On the other hand, social media is the easiest place to use covert operatives, even MSM
has other sponsors and actors, social media can be directly controlled by governments , and the
'intelligence community'. So they are just using the net for what they set it up for.
Propaganda for domestic consumption in the USA, isn't really meant to convince as much as to
scare people into submission. People don't obey Big Brother because they like him or believe
him, but because they cannot talk back to him and are scared of him. Media Scare tactics work
less if people can talk back, hear their own voice, not just Big Brother from every
loudspeaker.
Martin Luther (not King) said that "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the
bigger it becomes." The snowball is melting because there is shift in the narrative given what
is happening on the ground in Syria. I find it fascinating that as it melts down layer by
layer, the first trojan horse outfits to implode are left humanitarian ones like the Intercept,
Newsbud, Democracy Now. The right wing ones like Fox, Young Turks, just concentrate on dumbing
down the conversation to reduce reality to bombastic and misleading 'political' points. This is
a another way to control the conversation, to scare people into thinking that facts or not
facts but partisan political 'opinions'. Look at how Jimmy Dore's in the interview mentioned by
B with Carla Ortiz, is trying to dumb down the conversation and keeps feigning ignorance.
Thankfully she blows him out of the water. Good job Carla!
The snowball is big and melting slowly. Who's next?
Vesti has a great 10-minute clip dated yesterday from a Russian talk show with Margarita
Simonyan of RT doing much of the talking. What she says is really encouraging about how she's
trying to talk, not to power (which already knows the real truth that it's obscuring) but to
common people, because there are those among the common people who do speak up and who really
do shape public opinion - not governments.
She cited Roger Waters as an example, who was speaking at a concert and telling the truth
about the White Helmets. She said, someone has to read in order to speak. And someone has to
write so someone can read. And that's what RT is doing, and that's how it works. And it is
working.
George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread.
It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it
could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia.
This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up
for A
What many people don't realize is that fascism is a greedy habit, it expands to finally swallow
up those who think they are protected by silence or looking the other way. The individuals and
organizations villified today are the real heroes, and even if they suffer today, they will be
vindicated in the end. But unfortunately the gullible masses would by then be in the open
prison of fascism.
I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly
seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing
and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western
imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other
imperialist myths.
For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and
democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's
an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too!
The reason our media is so full of lies and distortions and propaganda is because the harsh
realities of our New Imperialism wars are so out of synch with the reality of what's happening
and crucially the attitudes of the general public who don't want to fight more overseas wars,
and especially if they are 'crusades' for democracy and freedom. But what's happened recently
is that dissent is being targeted as tantamount to treason. This is rather new and
disturbing.
It's because the ruling elite are... losing it and way too many people are questioning their
ideas about the wars we are fighting and their legitimacy and 'right to rule.'
In many ways the Internet is bringing about a kind of revolution in relation to the people's
access to 'texts' and images that reminds one of the great intellectual upheavals that the
translation of the Bible had on European thought four hundred years ago. Suddenly Bibles were
being printed all over the place and people could read the sacred texts without having to ask
the educated priests to 'filter' and translate and explain what it all meant. In a way
Wikileaks was doing the same thing... allowing people access to secret material, masses of it,
bypassing the traditional newsmedia and the journalistic 'preists.'
The national security elite now wants us to believe we are seeing things that aren't really
there. 'Gaslight' lobbycard, from left, Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, 1944. (Photo by LMPC via
Getty Images)
Ten years ago, "restraint" was considered code for "isolationism" and its purveyors were
treated with nominal attention and barely disguised condescension. Today, agitated national
security elites who can no longer ignore the restrainers -- and the positive attention they're
getting -- are trying to cut them down to size.
We saw this recently when Peter Feaver, Hal Brands, and William Imboden, who all made their
mark promoting George W. Bush's war policies after 9/11,
published "In Defense of the Blob" for Foreign Affairs in April.
My own pushback received an attempted drubbing in The Washington Post by
national security professor Daniel Drezner ( he of
the Twitter fame ): "For one thing, her essay repeatedly contradicts itself. The Blob is an
exclusive cabal, and yet Vlahos also says it's on the wane."
One can be both, Professor. As they say, Rome didn't fall in a day. What we are
witnessing are individuals and institutions sensing existential vulnerabilities. The
restrainers have found a nerve and the Blob is feeling the pinch. Now it's starting to throw
its tremendous girth around.
The latest example is from Michael J. Mazarr, senior political scientist at the Rand
Corporation, which since 1948 has essentially provided the brainpower behind the Military
Industrial Congressional Complex. Mazarr published this
voluminous warrant against restrainers in the most recent issue of TheWashington
Quarterly, which is run by the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington
University. Its editorial board reeks of the conventional
internationalist thinking that has prevailed over the last 70 years.
In "Rethinking Restraint: Why It Fails in Practice," Mazarr insists that the critics have it
all wrong: "American primacy" is way overstated and the U.S. has been more moderate in military
interventions than it's given credit for. Moreover, he says, the restrainers divide current "US
strategy into two broad caricatures -- primacy or liberal hegemony at one extreme, and
restraint at the other. Such an approach overlooks a huge, untidy middle ground where the views
of most US national security officials reside and where most US policies operate."
There is much to unpack in his nearly 10,000-word brief, and much to counter it. For
example, Monica Duffy Toft has done incredible
research into the history of U.S. interventions over the last 70 years, in part studying
the number of times we've used force in response to incidents of foreign aggression. While the
United States engaged in 46 military interventions from 1948 to 1991, from 1992 to 2017, that
number increased fourfold to 188 (chart below). Kind of calls Mazarr's "frequent impulse to
moderation" theory into question.
But I would like to zero in on the most infuriating charge, which mimics Drezner, Brands,
Feaver, et al.: that the idea of a powerful, largely homogeneous foreign policy establishment
dominating top levels of government, think tanks, media, and academia is really all in our
heads. It's not real.
This weak attempt to gaslight the rest of us is an insult to George Cukor's 1944 Hollywood classic . It's
unworthy. In the section "There is No Sinister National Security Elite," Mazarr turns to
Stephen Walt (who wrote an entire book on
the self-destructive Blob) and Andrew Bacevich (who has written that the ideology of American
exceptionalism and primacy "serves the interests of those who created the national security
state and those who still benefit from its continued existence"). This elite, both men charge,
enjoy "status, influence, and considerable wealth" in return for supporting the consensus.
To this Mazarr contends, "Apart from collections of anecdotes, those convinced of the
existence of such a homogenous elite offer no objective evidence -- such as surveys,
interviews, or comprehensive literature reviews -- to back up these sweeping claims." Then
failing to offer his own evidence, he argues:
on specific policy questions -- whether to go to war or conduct a humanitarian
intervention, or what policy to adopt toward China or Cuba or Russia or Iran -- debates in
Washington are deep, intense, and sometimes bitter. To take just a single example from recent
history, the Obama administration's decision to endorse a surge in Afghanistan came only
after extended deliberation and soul-searching, and it included a major, and highly
controversial, element of restraint -- a very public deadline to begin a graduated
withdrawal.
Let's go back to 2009, because some of us actually remember these "deep, intense, and
sometimes bitter" times.
First, the only "bitter debates" were
between the military, which wanted to "surge" 40,000 troops into Afghanistan in the first year
of Obama's presidency, and the president, who had promised to bring the war to an end. After
months, Obama "compromised" when in December 2009, he announced a plan for 30,000 new troops
(which would bring the then-current number to 98,000) and a timetable for withdrawal of 18
months hence, which really pleased no one , not even the outlier restrainers, like
Mazarr suggests.
In fact, restrainers knew the timetable was bunk, and it was. In 2011, there were still
100,000 troops on the ground. In fact, it didn't get down to pre-2009 levels until December
2013.
But let it be clear: the only contention in December 2009 was over the timetable (the hawks
at the Heritage
Foundation and
AEI wanted an open-ended commitment) and whether the president should have been more
deferential to his generals (General Stanley McCrystal had just been installed as commander in
Afghanistan and
the mainstream media was fawning ). Otherwise, every major think tank in town and national
security pundit blasted out press releases and op-eds supporting the presidents strategy with
varying degrees of enthusiasm. None, aside from the usual TAC suspects, raised a serious
note against it. Examples:
John " Eating
Soup with a Knife " Nagl,
Center for a New American Security : "This strategy will protect the Afghan population with
international forces now and build Afghan security forces that in time will allow an American
drawdown–leaving behind a more capable Afghan government and a more secure region which
no longer threatens the United States and our allies." Each of the CNAS fellows on this press
release offer a variation on the same theme, with some more energetic than others. Ditto for
this one from The Council on Foreign
Relations .
Vanda Felhab-Brown,
Brookings Institution : "there would have been no chance to turn the security situation
around, take the momentum away from the Taliban, and hence, enable economic development and
improvements in governance and rule of law, without the surge."
David Ignatius, TheWashington
Post : "Obama has made what I think is the right decision: The only viable 'exit
strategy' from Afghanistan is one that starts with a bang -- by adding 30,000 more U.S. troops
to secure the major population centers, so that control can be transferred to the Afghan army
and police."
Ahead of Obama's decision (during the "bitter debate"), the Brookings Institution's Michael
O'Hanlon, a fixture on TheWashington Post op-ed pages and cable news
shows -- was pushing for
the maximum : "President Barack Obama should approve the full buildup his commanders are
requesting, even as he also steels the nation for a difficult and uncertain mission ahead."
Meanwhile, all of the so-called progressive national security groups, including the Center
for American Progress, Third Way, and the National Security Network, heralded Obama's plan as
"a smarter, stronger strategy that stated clear objectives and is based on American security
interests, namely preventing terrorist attacks."
"Counterintuitively," they said in a
joint statement , "sending more troops will allow us to get out more quickly."
Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has always
been a thoughtful skeptic, but he never fails to offer a hedge on whatever new plan comes down
the pike. Here he
is on Obama's surge , exemplifying how difficult it was/is for the establishment to just
call a failure a failure:
The strategy President Obama has set forth in broad terms can still win if the
Afghan government and Afghan forces become more effective, if NATO/ISAF national
contingents provide more unity of effort, if aid donors focus on the fact that
development cannot succeed unless the Afghan people see real progress where they live in the
near future, and if the United States shows strategic patience and finally provides
the resources necessary to win.
That's a lot of "ifs," but they provide amazing cover for those who don't want to admit the
cause is lost -- or can't -- because their work depends on giving the military and State
Department something to do. This is what happens when your think tank relies on government
contracts and grants and arms industry
money . According to TheNew York Times, major defense contractors Lockheed
Martin and Boeing gave some $77 million to a dozen think tanks between 2010 and 2016.
They aren't getting the money to advocate that troops, contractors, NGO's, and diplomats
come home and stay put. Money and agenda underwrites who is heading the think tanks,
who speaks for the national security programs, and who populates conferences,
book launches, speeches, and television appearances. Mazarr doesn't think this can be
quantified but it's rather easy. Google "2009 Afghanistan conference/panel/speakers" and plenty
of events come up. Pick any year, the results are predictable.
Here's a Brookings Panel in August 2009
, assessing the Afghanistan election, including Anthony Cordesman, Kimberly Kagan, and Michael
O'Hanlon. Not a lot of "diversity" there. Here's a taste of the 2009 annual CNAS
conference, which featured the usual suspects, including David Petraeus, Ambassador Nicholas
Burns, and 1,400 people in attendance. Aside from Andrew " Skunk
at the Garden Party " Bacevich, there was little to distinguish one world view from another
among the panelists. (CNAS was originally founded in support of Hillary Clinton's 2008
campaign; she spoke at the inaugural conference in 2007. Former president Michele Flournoy
later landed in the E-Ring of the Pentagon.) Meanwhile, here's a Hudson Institute
tribute to David Petraeus, attended by Scooter Libby, and a December 2009
Atlantic Council panel with -- you guessed it -- Kimberly Kagan and two military
representatives thrown in to pump up McChrystal and NATO and staying the course.
On top of it all, these events and their people never failed to get the attention of the
major corporate media, which just loved the idea of warrior-monk generals "liberating"
Afghanistan through a "government in a box" counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy.
Honestly, thank goodness for Cato , which before the new
Quincy Institute, was the only think tank to feature COIN critics like Colonel
Gian Gentile , and not just as foils. The Center for the National Interest also harbored
skeptics of the president's strategy. But they were outnumbered too.
This is what I want to convey. Mazarr boasts there is a galaxy of opinion today over U.S.
policy in Iran, China, Russia, NATO. I would argue there is a narrow spectrum of technical and
ideological disagreement in all these cases, but nowhere was it more important to have strong,
competing voices than during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and there was none of that in any
realistic sense of the word.
I challenge him and the others to take down the straw men and own the ecosystem to which
they owe their success in Washington (Mazarr just published a piece called "Toward a New
Theory of Power Projection" for goodness sake). Stop trying to pretend what is there isn't.
Realists and restrainers are happy to debate the merits of our different approaches, but
gaslighting is for nefarious lovers and we're no Ingrid Bergman. about the author
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
1) R/e Netflix and The White Helmets propaganda.
Expect more like this. Consider - Susan Rice Added to Netflix Board of Directors
CEO Reed Hastings says streaming service will benefit from former Obama administration
official's "experience and wisdom" https://www.thewrap.com/susan-rice-added-netflix-board-directors/
2) DO watch this new interview by Jimmy Dore with Carla Ortiz. You won't regret it.
Carla Ortiz Shocking Video From Syria Contradicts Corp. News Coverage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCu8mNC1JyE
Ortiz spent 2 years in Syria, she had originally intended to make a documentary about how
women of Syria are coping, she also was naive about the White Helmets. She filmed the human
corridors, she talked to regular people, she has lots of great footage.
Comedian Jimmy Dore has been demonetized on any youtube videos that talk about Syria or
war. CNN did a smear piece on him and other youtubers.
Someone mentioned the Netflix documentary White Helmets winning the Oscar, and that jogged
memories from a couple years ago when the movie was released. While browsing Netflix looking
for movies, I came across it and clicked on to watch, quickly discovering it to be a
one-sided propaganda piece glorifying White Helmets and demonizing The Syrian "regime". I
went to the Netflix reviews for the film expecting to see posts exposing this, but was
shocked with what I saw. There were 61 reviews at that time, and 57 of them were rated
5-star, two 4-star, one 3-star, with one 1-star review (it had been posted that day) which
brought truth to the issue. I had never seen any film ever which got that percentage of
5-star ratings.
I posted a review (giving 1-star) pointing out who funded White Helmets, and informed
viewers that there was a lot of information available which countered the film's narrative
(including Beeley and Bartlett's first-hand reporting from Syria). My review (like the other
critical one) was mild with no content which would violate any standards. I checked my
posting for the next two days to check response, and was happy to see it listed at the top as
the "most helpful" review (based on reviewer clicks). And guess what happened the next day?
Both my review and the other 1-star had just disappeared; it was back to 100% positive
reviews. Looking for Netflix policy about deleting reviews, I could find no way an ordinary
subscriber could do it, and guidelines for management to do it were only if a review was
extremely offensive (racist, profanity, etc.).
I was disgusted with the whole thing and never checked back. I assume there are plenty of
critical reviews there now. But there is no question the reviews were manipulated during the
critical time period when the film was "hot", just released and leading up to the Oscars,
with Hollywood celebrities singing the praises.
It may seem a trivial affair, but what it did for me was inform me of the depth and extent
this propaganda happens, even in the most unlikely of places. Even with a limited diet of MSM
consumption, I'm amazed at how many times a day I encounter it, with NPR being just awful. I
am both frustrated with how many friends and acquaintances have swallowed this totally, but
also encouraged to see the growing number of folks seeking the truth from sources like MOA,
Consortium, Saker, etc. I agree with many who see what's happening in Syria as crucial for
both the warmongers and for us in exposing it. My little experience with Netflix is just a
small piece of a huge and widespread campaign.
Laura, thanks for the link to Carla Ortiz's videos. What a contrast to the video clips (Al
Jazeera, especially) featured in Sonali Kolhatkar's post at Truthdig.com. These confirm what
eyewitnesses told Robert Fisk - that someone burst into a room, yelled 'gas attack' Not
heard), after which the video cameras started rolling, as White Helmeteers grabbed children
and started hosing them down with water, even though nobody appeared ill, although the
children did seem annoyed. Presumably extemporaneous speeches were delivered by (1) a White
Helmeteer and (2) a representative of the Syrian American Medical, both organizations CIA
funded. Staged events, if ever there was one. Why truthdig allowed such obvious fake news on
its website? Well, they simultaneously featured a story by Frank Ritter that challenged the
triple alliance (USA, GB & France) of evil's Assad did it line, so perhaps Sonali's piece
was published so that when the censors come aknockin,the editors can say, "look, we did
provide balance (ie cover their asses).
"... It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of time sentences could be reduced for good behavior." ..."
"... The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates. They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40 takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps ..."
"... Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. ..."
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. It's goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization
itself. This is an ideological movement Even now, many of us pretend this is about police
brutality. We think we can fix it by regulating chokeholds or spending more on de-escalation
training. We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening. But we have no
idea what we are up against. ..These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political
movement and someone needs to save the country from it." Tucker
Carlson
Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy. The
Black Lives Matter protests are just the tip of the spear, they are an expression of public
outrage that is guaranteed under the first amendment. But don't be deceived, there's more here
than meets the eye. BLM is funded by foundations that seek to overthrow our present form of
government and install an authoritarian regime guided by technocrats, oligarchs and
corporatists all of who believe that Chinese-type despotism is far-more compatible with
capitalism than "inefficient" democracy. The chaos in the streets is merely the beginning of an
excruciating transition from one system to another. This is an excerpt from an article by F.
William Engdahl at Global Research:
"By 2016, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network .. That
year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led
Movement Fund (BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the
Movement for Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros
foundations had already given some $33 million in
grants to the Black Lives Matter movement .. ..
The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to
the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations." (
"America's Own Color
Revolution ", Global Research)
$100 million is alot of money. How has that funding helped BLM expand its presence in
politics and social media? How many activists and paid employees operate within the network
disseminating information, building new chapters, hosting community outreach programs, and
fine-tuning an emergency notification system that allows them to put tens of thousands of
activists on the streets in cities across the country at a moment's notice? Isn't that what
we've seen for the last three weeks, throngs of angry protestors swarming in more than 400
cities across America all at the beck-and-call of a shadowy group whose political intentions
are still not clear?
And what about the rioting, looting and arson that broke out in numerous cities following
the protests? Was that part of the script too? Why haven't BLM leaders condemned the
destruction of private property or offered a public apology for the downtown areas that have
been turned into wastelands? In my own hometown of Seattle, the downtown corridor– which
once featured Nordstrom, Pottery Barn and other upscale retail shops– is now a
checkerboard of broken glass, plywood covers and empty streets all covered in a thick layer of
garish spray-paint. The protest leaders said they wanted to draw attention to racial injustice
and police brutality. Okay, but how does looting Nordstrom help to achieve that goal?
And what role have the Democrats played in protest movement?
They've been overwhelmingly supportive, that's for sure. In fact, I can't think of even one
Democrat who's mentioned the violence, the looting or the toppling of statues. Why is that?
It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in
the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente
cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see
through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed
through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of
time sentences could be reduced for good behavior."
According to the Black Agenda
Repor t: "Biden and (South Carolina's Strom) Thurmond joined hands to push 1986 and 1988
drug enforcement legislation that created the nefarious sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine as well as other draconian measures that implicate him as one of the initiators
of what became mass incarceration. " Biden also spearheaded "the attacks on Anita Hill when she
came forward to testify against the supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas". All told, Biden's
record on race is much worse than Trump's despite the media's pathetic attempts to portray
Trump as Adolph Hitler. It's just more bunkum from the dissembling media.
Bottom line: The Democrats think they can ride racial division and social unrest all the way
to the White House. That's what they are betting on.
So, yes, the Dems are exploiting the protests for political advantage, but it goes much
deeper than that. After all, we know from evidence that was uncovered during the Russiagate
investigation, that DNC leaders are intimately linked to the Intel agencies, law enforcement
(FBI), and the elite media. So it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these deep state
agents and assets work together to shape the narrative that they think gives them the best
chance of regaining power. Because, that's what this is really all about, power. Just as
Russiagate was about power (removing the president using disinformation, spies, surveillance
and other skulduggery.), and just as the Covid-19 fiasco was essentially about power
(collapsing the economy while imposing medical martial law on the population.), so too, the BLM
protest movement is also about power, the power to inflict massive damage on the country's main
urban centers with the intention of destabilizing the government, restructuring the economy and
paving the way for a Democratic victory in November. It's all about power, real, unalloyed
political muscle.
Surprisingly, one of the best critiques of what is currently transpiring was written by
Niles Niemuth at the World Socialist Web Site. Here's what he said about the widespread
toppling of statues:
"The attacks on the monuments were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied attempt by the
Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to create a
narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. This
campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes entirely with the
reactionary political interests driving it.
It is worth noting that the one institution seemingly immune from this purge is the
Democratic Party, which served as the political wing of the Confederacy and, subsequently,
the KKK.
This filthy historical legacy is matched only by the Democratic Party's contemporary
record in supporting wars that, as a matter of fact, primarily targeted nonwhites. Democrats
supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and under Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. The
New York Times was a leading champion and propagandist for all of these war." (
"Hands
off the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant!, WSWS)
What the author is referring to is The 1619 Project, which is a racialized version of
American history that was published by the Times on August 19, 2019. The deliberately-distorted
version of history was cobbled together in anticipation of increasing social unrest and racial
antagonism. The rioting, looting and vast destruction of America's urban core can all be traced
back to a document that postulates that the country was founded on racial hatred and
exploitation. In other words, The 1619 Project provides the perfect ideological justification
for the chaos and violence that has torn the country apart for the last three weeks. This is an
excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Keep in mind, this essay in the WSWS was written a full year before BLM protests broke out
across the country. Was Hannah-Jones enlisted to create a document that would provide the dry
tinder for the massive and coordinated demonstrations that have left the country stunned and
divided?
Probably, after all, (as noted above) the author's theory is that one race is genetically
programed to exploit the other. ( "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. ")
Well, if we assume that whites are genetically and irreversibly "racist", then we must also
assume that the country that these whites founded is racist and evil. Thus, the only logical
remedy for this situation, is to crush the white segment of the population, destroy their
symbols, icons, and history, and replace the system of government with one that better reflects
the values of the emerging non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the
rationale for sustained civil unrest, deepening political polarization and violent
revolution.
The 1619 Project is a calculated provocation meant to exacerbate racial animosities and pave
the way to open conflagration. And it has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. The
nation is split into warring camps while Washington has devolved into fratricidal warfare. Was
that the objective, to destabilize the country in preparation for the dissolution of the
current system followed by a fundamental restructuring of the government consistent with the
identity politics lauded by the Democrats?
The Democrats, the Intel agencies and the media are all in bed together fomenting unrest
with the intention of decimating the economy, crushing the emerging opposition and imposing
their despotic one-party system on all of us. Here's a clip from a piece by Paul Craig Roberts
that sums up the role of the New York Times in inciting race-based violence:
"The New York Times editorial board covers up the known indisputable truth with their
anti-white "1619 project," an indoctrination program to inculcate hatred of white people in
blacks and guilt in white people.
Why does the New York Times lie, brainwash blacks into hatred of whites, and attempt to
brainwash whites into guilt for the creation of a New World labor force four centuries ago?
Why do Americans tolerate the New York Times fomenting of racial hatred in a multicultural
society?
The New York Times is a vile organization. The New York Times attempts to discredit the
President of the United States and did all it could to frame him on false charges. The New
York Times painted General Flynn, who honorably served the US, as a Russian agent and enabled
General Flynn's frame-up on false and now dropped charges. The New York Times spews hatred of
white people. And now the New York Times accuses the American military of celebrating white
supremacism.
Does America have a worse enemy than the New York Times? The New York Times is clearly and
intentionally making a multicultural America impossible . By threatening white people with
the prospect of hate-driven racial violence, the New York Times editorial board is fomenting
the rise of white supremacy." (
"The New York Times Editorial Board Is a Threat to Multicultural America ", The Unz
Review)
The editors of the Times don't hate whites, they are merely attacking the growing number of
disillusioned white working people who have left the Democratic party in frustration due to
their globalist policies regarding trade, immigration, offshoring, outsourcing and the
relentless hollowing out of the nation's industrial core . The Dems have abandoned these people
altogether and –now that they realize they will never be able to lure them back into
their camp– they've decided to wage a full-blown, scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners war
on them. They've decided to crush them mercilessly and fill their ranks with multi-ethnic,
bi-racial groups that will work for pennies on the dollar. (which will keep the Dems corporate
supporters happy.) So, no, the Times does not hate white people. What they hate is the growing
populist movement that derailed Hillary Clinton and put anti-globalist Trump in the White
House. That's the real target of this operation, the disillusioned throng of working people who
have washed their hands of the Democrats for good. Here's more background from Paul Craig
Roberts:
"On August 12 Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, met with the Times'
employees to refocus the Times' attack on Trump . The Times, Baquet said, is shifting from
Trump-Russia to Trump's racism. The Times will spend the run-up to the 2020 presidential
election building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. Of course, if Trump is a racist it means
that the people who elected him are also racists. Indeed, in Baquet's view, Americans have
always been racist. To establish this narrative, the New York Times has launched the "1619
Project," the purpose of which is "to reframe the country's history."
According to the Washington Examiner, "The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that
everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven
throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It
begins with an overview of race in America -- 'Our democracy's founding ideals were false
when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.'
The premise that America originated as a racist slave state is to be woven into all
sections of the Times -- news, business, sports, travel, the entire newspaper. The project
intends to take the "reframing" of the United States into the schools where white Americans
are to be taught that they are racist descendants of slave holders. A participant in this
brainwashing of whites, which will make whites guilty and defenseless, says "this project
takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has
shaped their country's history." In other words, the New York Times intends to make slavery
the ONLY explanation of America.
At the meeting of the executive editor of the New York Times with the Times' employees to
refocus the Times' attack on President Trump, Baquet said: "Race in the next year is going to
be a huge part of the American story." (
"Is White Genocide Possible? ", The Unz Review)
Repeat: "Race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story." Either
Baquet has a crystal ball or he had a pretty good idea of the way in which the 1619 Project was
going to be used . I suspect it was the latter.
For the last 3 and a half years, Democrats and the media have ridiculed anyone who opposes
their globalist policies as racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, Bible-thumping,
gun-toting, flag-waving, Nascar boosting, white nationalist "deplorables". Now they have
decided to intensify the assault on mainly white working people by preemptively destroying the
economy, destabilizing the country, and spreading terror far and wide. It's another vicious
psy-ops campaign designed to thoroughly demoralize and humiliate the enemy who just happen to
be the American people. Here's more form the WSWS:
" It is no coincidence that the promotion of this racial narrative of American history by
the Times, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the privileged upper-middle-class
layers it represents, comes amid the growth of class struggle in the US and around the
world.
The 1619 Project is one component of a deliberate effort to inject racial politics into
the heart of the 2020 elections and foment divisions among the working class. The Democrats
think it will be beneficial to shift their focus for the time being from the reactionary,
militarist anti-Russia campaign to equally reactionary racial politics." (" The New York
Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history " WSWS)
Can you see how the protests are being used to promote the political objectives of elites
operating behind the mask of "impartial" reporting? The scheming NY Times has replaced the
enlightenment principles articulated in our founding documents with a sordid tale of racial
hatred and oppression. The editors seek to eliminate everything we believe as Americans so they
can brainwash us into believing that we are evil people deserving of humiliation, repudiation
and punishment. Here's more from the same article:
"In the months preceding these events, the New York Times, speaking for dominant sections
of the Democratic political establishment, launched an effort to discredit both the American
Revolution and the Civil War. In the New York Times' 1619 Project, the American Revolution
was presented as a war to defend slavery, and Abraham Lincoln was cast as a garden variety
racist
The attacks on the monuments to these men were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied
attempt by the Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to
create a narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial
struggle . This campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes
entirely with the reactionary political interests driving it." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history" , WSWS)
Ideas have consequences, and the incendiary version of events disseminated by the Times has
added fuel to a fire that's spread from one coast to the other. Given the damage that has been
done to cities across the country, it would be nice to know how Dean Baquet knew that "race was
going to play a huge part" in upcoming events? It's all very suspicious. Here's more:
" Given the 1619 Project's black nationalist narrative, it may appear surprising that
nowhere in the issue do the names Malcolm X or Black Panthers appear. Unlike the black
nationalists of the 1960s, Hannah-Jones does not condemn American imperialism. She boasts
that "we [i.e. African-Americans] are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the
United States military," and celebrates the fact that "we" have fought "in every war this
nation has waged." Hannah-Jones does not note this fact in a manner that is at all critical.
She does not condemn the creation of a "volunteer" army whose recruiters prey on
poverty-stricken minority youth. There is no indication that Hannah-Jones opposes the "War on
Terror" and the brutal interventions in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria -- all
supported by the Times -- that have killed and made homeless upwards of 20 million people. On
this issue, Hannah-Jones is remarkably "color-blind." She is unaware of, or simply
indifferent to, the millions of "people of color" butchered and made refugees by the American
war machine in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world histor y", WSWS)
So, black nationalists like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are excluded from the The 1619
Project's narrative, but the author boasts that blacks "are the most likely of all racial
groups to serve in the US military"?? How does that happen unless Hannah-Jones was coached by
Democrat leaders about who should and shouldn't be included in the text? None of this passes
the smell test. It all suggests that the storyline was shaped by people who had a specific goal
in mind. That isn't history, it's fiction written by people who have an ax to grind. The Times
even admitted as much in response to the blistering criticism by five of "the most widely read
and respected authorities on US history." The New York TimesMagazine editor in
chief Jake Silverstein rejected the historians' objections saying:
"The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in
the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American
life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at
current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is?"
WTF! "We are not ourselves historians"? That's the excuse?? Give me a break!
The truth is that there was never any attempt to provide an accurate account of events. From
the very onset, the goal was to create a storyline that fit the politics, the politics of
provocation, incitement, racial hatred, social unrest and violence. That's what the Times and
their allies wanted, and that's what they got.
The Deep State Axis: CIA, DNC, NYT
The three-way alliance between the CIA, the Elite Media, and the Democratic leadership has
clearly strengthened and grown since the failed Russiagate fiasco. All three parties were
likely involved in the maniacal hyping of the faux-Covid pandemic which paved the way for
Depression era unemployment, tens of thousands of bankrupt businesses and a sizable portion of
the US population thrust into destitution. Now, these deep state loyalists are promoting a
"falsified" race-based version of history that pits one group against the other while diverting
attention from the deliberate destruction of the economy and the further consolidation of
wealth in the hands of the 1 percent.
Behind the veil of the protest movement, the war on the American people is gaining pace.
Stopped reading the Times after the buildup to the Iraq War, when it was clear they were
lying. Everyone please stop reading the Times, and in particular stop referring to what they
are writing. Act like they don't exist. If enough do, they won't.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates.
They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where
Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40
takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
"Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy."
I am reminded of david horowitz and chrissy hitchens
And how they promoted Israeli interests after first pretending to be independent thinkers
to gain creed for the switch. Standard zionazi-gay psywar tactic.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump
debates.
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
Stupid and planned?
Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for
power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. Why should DNC care if Trump is 're-elected'? And if
they don't care, who not take a stab at installing an intersectional DNC pinnacle fraudster
via the griftiest, most insulting, infuriating way possible? They can't lose.
@Druid55 That is
the western MSM sugared up version of what happened in Yugoslavia. Western MSM learned their
lesson about being truthful about war when US and friends were in Vietnam.
Lies and lies only come from western MSM these days so wars and regime change games can go
on with anyone noticing or caring.
Western MSM notifies their puppet readers that all the US and friends does is
"humanitarian" stuff these days. Most puppet readers lap up this junk.
March 24, 1999 will go down in history as a day of infamy. US-led NATO raped Yugoslavia.
Doing so was its second major combat operation.
It was lawless aggression. No Security Council resolution authorized it. NATO's
Operation Allied Force lasted 78 days.
Washington called it Operation Noble Anvil. Evil best describes it. On June 10,
operations ended.
From March 1991 through mid-June 1999, Balkan wars raged. Yugoslavia "balkanized" into
seven countries. They include Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia and Slovenia.
Enormous human suffering was inflicted. Washington bears most responsibility.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the
United States (2004)
For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually
requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting
for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so. February 26, 2015 The
Neoconservative Threat To World Order
Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the
Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the
friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev
succeeded in establishing.
"... First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich. ..."
"... And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom. ..."
"... Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. ..."
"... The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?) ..."
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace'
crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?
First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and
morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And
they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to
locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse
starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can
achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire
2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.
And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to
at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means
replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.
What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great
Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In
the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long
game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push
the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on
reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia
naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they
intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great
Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.
Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of
Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For
them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and
Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene
pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can
easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)
And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
"... Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is real and what isn't any more. ..."
"... Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the country. ..."
"... Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527 ) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage to a crumbling US. ..."
"... Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't exist. ..."
Gerald says:
June 20, 2020 at 5:34 pm surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won
you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real
or not) of course if you are a kind of despotic dictatorship (as appears to be
happening in terms of western neoliberal capitalism) then you will merely do as you
wish regardless until confronted with overwhelming opposition at which point you will
infiltrate and co-opt said opposition, pay lip service to their vague claim for
'rights' and continue on your merry way.
I always thought that the greatest thing that the capitalists did in the 20th
century was to get the slaves to love their slavery, its all advertising, hollywood, TV
that's all that politics has become, certainly in the West. Edward Bernays has a lot to
answer for.
Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is
real and what isn't any more.
Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk
from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the
country.
There is no wonder that Putin looks like the greatest 21st century leader, the last
of a dying breed. Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527
) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage
to a crumbling US.
Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best
tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't
exist.
=>
List of Bookmarks ◄► ◄ ► ▲▼ Add
to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next
New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text
Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he
has not started any new wars, though he has come dangerously close in the cases of Venezuela
and Iran and there would be considerable incentive in the next four months to begin something
to bolster his "strong president" credentials and to serve as a distraction from coronavirus
and black lives matter.
Be that as it may, Trump will have to run hard to catch up to the record set by his three
predecessors Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Bush was an out-and-out
neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led, including in his administration Donald
Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Gerecht, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Eliot
Abrams, Dan Senor and Scooter Libby. He also had the misfortune of having to endure Vice
President Dick Cheney, who thought he was actually the man in charge. All were hawks who
believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance
its own security, to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where
the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria. Clinton bombed
Afghanistan and Sudan as a diversion when the press somehow caught wind of his arrangement with
Monica Lewinsky and Obama, aided by Mrs. Clinton, chose to destroy Libya. Obama was also the
first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American
citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. The America the
exceptional mindset is best exemplified currently by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who
personifies the belief that the United States is empowered by God to play only by its own rules
when dealing with other nations. That would include following the advice that has been
attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, " Every ten years or so, the United States
needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show
the world we mean business. "
One of the first families within the neocon/liberal interventionist firmament is the Kagans,
Robert and Frederick. Frederick is a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute
and his wife Kimberly heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War. Victoria
Nuland, wife of Robert, is currently the Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group and
a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. That means that Victoria aligns
primarily as a liberal interventionist, as does her husband, who is also at Brookings. She is
regarded as a protégé of Hillary Clinton and currently works with former Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, who once declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children using sanctions
was "worth it." Nuland also has significant neocon connections through her having been a member
of the staff assembled by Dick Cheney.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian
government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt
autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who was the
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department,
provided open support to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to
include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents
in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to
interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget , but
Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she
and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create in Ukraine. For Nuland, the
replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating
conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in
Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention at that time to expand the conflict and
directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony she cited how the administration
was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Her use of the word
"frontline" is suggestive.
Victoria Nuland was playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military
capability to destroy the U.S., was and is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the
Taliban's Afghanistan. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and
sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable
relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving
in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no
compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to
join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Victoria Nuland has just written a long article for July/August issue of Foreign
Affairs magazine on the proper way for the United States manage
what she sees as the Russian "threat." It is entitled "How a Confident America Should Deal
With Russia." Foreign Affairs , it should be observed, is an establishment house organ
produced by the Council on Foreign Relations which provides a comfortable perch for both
neocons and liberal interventionists.
Nuland's view is that the United States lost confidence in its own "ability to change the
game" against Vladimir Putin, who has been able to play "a weak hand well because the United
States and its allies have let him, allowing Russia to violate arms control treaties,
international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the
United States and Europe Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the
Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent
U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a
shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included
incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about
the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as
Russia's threat to the liberal world has grown."
What Nuland writes would make perfect sense if one were to share her perception of Russia as
a rogue state threatening the "liberal world." She sees Russian rearmament under Putin as a
threat even though it was dwarfed by the spending of NATO and the U.S. She shares her fear that
Putin might seek " reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from
vetoing the security arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal
democracies and the still very Soviet man leading Russia, especially on the subject of NATO
enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO
was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin's
agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms."
Nuland's view of NATO enlargement is so wide of the mark that it borders on being a fantasy.
Of course, Russia would consider a military alliance on its doorstep to be a threat,
particularly as a U.S. Administration had provided assurances that expansion would not take
place. She goes on to suggest utter nonsense, that Putin's great fear over the NATO expansion
derives from his having " always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic, prosperous
states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk
re-infecting his own people with democratic aspirations."
Nuland goes on and on in a similar vein, but her central theme is that Russia must be
confronted to deter Vladimir Putin, a man that she clearly hates and depicts as if he were a
comic book version of evil. Some of her analysis is ridiculous, as "Russian troops regularly
test the few U.S. forces left in Syria to try to gain access to the country's oil fields and
smuggling routes. If these U.S. troops left, nothing would prevent Moscow and Tehran from
financing their operations with Syrian oil or smuggled drugs and weapons."
Like most zealots, Nuland is notably lacking in any sense of self-criticism. She conspired
to overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine because it was considered
too friendly to Russia. She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the
heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of
Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as
expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a
thousand.
Nuland clearly chooses not to notice the White House's threats against countries that do not
toe the American line, most recently Iran and Venezuela, but increasingly also China on top of
perennial enemy Russia. None of those nations threaten the United States and all the kinetic
activity and warnings are forthcoming from a gentleman named Mike Pompeo, speaking from
Washington, not from "undemocratic" leaders in the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas or Beijing.
Victoria Nuland recommends that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead
the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia -- one that builds
on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own
citizens." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings of a
foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is
precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine.
Nuland has a lot more to say in her article and those who are interested in the current
state of interventionism in Washington should not ignore her. Confronting Russia as some kind
of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that leaves both sides poorer and less free. It
is appropriate for Moscow to have an interest in what goes on right on top of its border while
the United States five thousand miles away and possessing both a vastly larger economy and
armed forces can, one would think, relax a bit and unload the burden of being the world's
self-appointed policeman.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
This is a great overview, but Americans cannot understand these truths after hours of
constant propaganda in our media. For example, Hillary Clinton and President Obama destroyed
and looted Africa's most prosperous nation in 2011 that resulted in tens of thousands of
deaths of innocents. This is not in dispute, it is just ignored despite daily stories about
the chaos in Libya. Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and
looting of Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt
by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed
by a $5 billion budget, "
As you yourself have pointed out, more than once, in fact, there actually is a foreign
country which, more than, interferes in U.S. domestic policy, some would estimate,
effectively controls it, and foreign policy, as well.
While it would a bit of an effort to monetize the full amount spent on this effort, I
personally would not be a bit surprised if it were significantly larger than $5 billion, and
despite that, one could imagine, quite a bargain in terms of their ROI; it could in fact be
considerably less than the overt transfer of sovereign U.S. wealth to that foreign government
every year.
The past administrations, either every one, or almost every one, going back as far
as Truman, certainly , but the trend was already well established during the puppet
presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
I'd love to read your rejoinder.
onetribe
being blocked incorrectly from using my usual handle
Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of
Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
An admirable sentiment, except that the BLM movement appears to be little more than a
vehicle for staged chaos nurtured behind the scenes by more war criminals with a hidden
agenda.
And more's the pity, because there are hordes of high-ranking war criminals in the
Exceptional Nation that richly deserve burning at the stake. In the Libyan context, Muammar
Gaddafi was not only a great leader but also a good man, who was doing great things not only
for his own people but also for the community of African nations.
If you're going to have a dictator, make sure you get a good one. Gaddafi was a good
one.
Trump not so much, but Clinton was and is horrifically evil.
The war against Russia has been going on for centuries. Nothing upsets these nutters more
than the Russians insulating themselves from the mental virus that has proliferated in the
West.
Just read the sour grapes of the usual suspects in this derogatory article. Similar in
tone to the nonsense at the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. Nothing amuses me more than to
watch them vomiting on themselves in frustration.
Nuland's views are, as stated in the article, dangerous fantasy-one could almost accuse her
of having psychopathic voices in her head with respect to russia and putin.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that this woman was close to the top level in
state under obama but we can surely see her handiwork in the devastation of the ukraine
nation.
Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of
Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war
crimes.
My imagination:
An agitator is planted inside BLM, and is armed and equipped to carry out a terrorist attack
on the American people as false flag event – blows up a weight-watchers convention,
next to a Wal-mart, and puts a half-a-dozen fat bodies into orbit circling the
globe(celestial bodies). After said attack BLM is defunded, and disbanded(but the race war
continues).
You forgot to mention that virtually all of the neocon/liberal interventionist
"intellectuals"on your list identify as Jewish, which means they see themselves as having
Hebrew backgrounds, which not only gives them an Israel First/Zionist orientation, but which
means their hatred of "anti-Semitic" Russia is pathological and ancestral, which means their
hatred of "anti-Semitic" Europeans is pathological and ancestral, which means their hatred of
"anti-Semitic" white people is pathological and ancestral, which means their desire for
nuclear war between whites is pathological and ancestral, which means they believe they can
win a nuclear war (perhaps by sheltering in bunker state Israel) and emerge as the anointed
"chosen" intellectual priest class of the world
So there is a kind of internal logic or rationalism to their insanity, in the same way
that any insular, imperious elite suffering from megalomania and delusions of grandeur can
develop internal, echo chamber "logic" that is (objectively) insane. The difference is, their
insane "logic" is additionally sanctioned by their particular God or their particular History
or their version of God/History.
Hence, with this cult, we not only get insular, echo-chamber imperialism, but we
additionally get quasi-religious, messianic fanaticism that will view any nuclear war as
pre-ordained fate in service of delivering the Chosen Ones to the world.
And half of America thinks Trump is nuts? It should look at the "intellectual Jews" it's
so desperate to consign its fate to.
Posturing. What else can this be, coming from the lips of a Jewish woman? It all just sounds
so ridiculous. What authority does she have? Only the threat of force, reckless force
dispensed with abandon. That's not authority. It's insanity.
Another critique of US foreign policy regarding Russia, all referenced under the famous
"cookies and milk" response of Ms. Nuland in Kyiv. Lucky for Russia that she wasn't doling
out scoops of ice cream instead?
For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to
protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western
oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests over those
of Russia's. It's time for the Giraldis and Cohens of the world to shed their Russian fig
leaf covering and be exposed as the gutless appeasers that they really are.
Victoria Nuland (her family name formerly Nudelman) and her blood-thirsty, thieving zionist
neocon buddies would love nothing more than to tear Russia apart and finish the rape and
plunder of that country first begun under Russia's 'reformer' president, the idiot Yeltsin,
wherein mostly jewish Russian and American oligarchs systematically stole what amounts to
about $330 billion dollars of Russia's wealth.
That these zionist neocon murderers and thieves would put the world at risk to achieve
their goals is no surprise, as one need only look at the 3,000+ innocent American lives,
including many Jews, that were snuffed out on 9/11, all to set the stage for the US and
allies' "War of Terror" against mainly the enemies of Israel, and to line the pockets of the
ever-growing Military-Information-Security Complex. Innocent lives mean absolutely nothing to
these monsters.
The campaign against Russia is simply another necessary link in the chain that binds the
world to the PNAC vision of using the US and the West to establish and maintain what is
essentially a Jewish supremacist movement that barely conceals itself and its nefarious
agenda from the useful idiot goyim so necessary to carry forward the PNAC's plan for world
domination. And the chubby little Ms Nudelman is just another tireless zionist mouthpiece for
this ugly, obnoxious and risky agenda
Giraldi would have us believe that it was all a US sponsored provocation, not the natural
outcry of the Ukrainiain people seeking change from a thoroughly corrupt and authoritarian
regime. Ms.Nuland's cookies must have tasted really good to get the massive outpouring of
support in Kiev that demanded systemic change.
Venezuela? A threat to US national security?? Sounds completely absurd.
But if you consider your 'national security' being threatened whenever any scarce natural
resources in the world are not in your or in your client states' posession, then anthing
which interferes with that is a "threat!" Iran (before 2003), Iraq, and Russia certainly fit
the bill of being enemies.
This explanation, for me, is much more realistic than to think the neocons are solely
driven by cold war mentalities.
The neocons are particularly peeved at Russia because through their oligarchs, they had
the crown jewels in their hand before Putin wrested it out. It was always clear from the
beginning that the overthrow of the Ukraine government was always just a stepping stone to
the overthrow of Putin in Russia.
Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you control
China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe financially.
Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level, the productive
people of the world Germany and China then work for you.
Nuland and her ilk will be spewing their dangerous nonsense and banging the drums of war like
homicidal energizer bunnies until hell freezes over. Meanwhile, "from Atlantic to Pacific,
the insanity is terrific," as the nation devolves in an engineered mass hysteria. As things
go down the tubes, the Empire will get ever more desperate, rather than easing back a bit on
the throttle. With Donald Boy and Sec. of State "Plump-piehole" egging on Israeli
expansionist dreams and drone-executing whomever they please–what could possibly go
wrong? I'm waiting for one, just one, European power to call bullshit on the U.S. and put a
stop to this madness. Fat chance of that.
I think we are in the Empire's desperation phase. The Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) report that called for and got another Pearl Harbor also spoke affectionately of
creating bioweapons to target any upstart nation encroaching on U.S. hegemony. If the
bastards could get away with 9/11, a most obvious inside job, what's not to like about the
disruption and confusion of bioweapons? The ruthless evil we are up against is truly
staggering.
It would be super funny, if Russian, Chinese, Serbian, Sudanese, Afghani, and Iranian
diplomats now went out en mass to give out cookies to the US rioters.
Taking PR pictures with the poor oppressed black looters and antifa trannies, lecturing
Washington on human rights, and pledging support to the "moderate terrorists" i.e. the
democrat mayors and governors who decide to not interfere with the looting and autonomous
zones.
I think this would be the most epic troll ever. Especially if Venezuela then paraded some
nervous spook and declared him the "legitimate president of the United States".
Or maybe, kek, just appoint Bernie the real president. "For two elections the corrupt
system has denied this true hero his rightful position. Enough! We support the people's
choice!" etc. Bernie would be all: "I don't know who these people are, honest," and they'd
be: "stay strong, comrade, we shall help you in your fight to become a true people's
president!"
America's most pro-Israel President, the one who moved the embassy to Jerusalem and appointed
a West Bank settler dude as ambassador, has both refrained from starting wars and is
gradually bringing the troops home from Afghanistan, Germany, etc.
So much for the Jihadi/leftist smear that Israel's friends promote wars.
Trump: peace through strength and loyalty to America's true friends.
Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that
leaves both sides poorer and less free.
Well said.
It's also really strange to portray Russia in this demonic fashion. When you see it up
close, there are things you don't like or question, things that are bizarre, absurdly
inefficient, and outright abhorrent, but it's far from the big threatening geopolitical beast
they make it out to be. It's more of a joke which even Russians understand.
There's a phrase from the USSR that someone taught me –
аналогов нет, "no
analogues" or nothing comparable, referring to the quality of their military armaments,
specifically rockets. Obvious nonsense pushed by the USSR to bolster faith in the populace,
it lives on today in Kremlin propaganda, but is widely regarded as the bullshit it is, which
is why videos containing the phrase itself are banned on YouTube Russia.
In short Russia, as a meme, is a "paper tiger" propped up largely by Washingtonian
psychodrama and will-to-power. Washington doesn't want Russia out of Crimea because they love
the Ukrainians; they want them out because Ukraine is a major destination for American
corporate venality. Absent interference from Washington, the Kremlin might undertake some
foreign adventures in neighboring countries, but for the most part would continue on its
obvious path of "peacefully" melding with the Chinese economy, like everyone else.
There is no white nation free of the forces of decline set in motion by white success and
the overall technological arc of history. "Russia" is nothing more than a scarecrow for the
Washington establishment – which it could just as well drop, as they no longer need
justifications or approval from the people – and signifies only a livid hunger for the
last major market they've yet to absorb directly.
It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that
he has not started any new wars, though
It is difficult to read past an opening sentence such as this one.
I have seen it constantly. I call it the "Back-handed Trump hating fool" approach. The
many writers who employ this method in their articles appear to believe that they literally
have to make it clear to their readers that of course they (the writers) think Trump is a
moron/cad/crook/criminal/mentally ill, BUT!!!
Then they proceed with the rest of their article.
But don't you (the reader) dare think that they think anything good about Trump!
This is childish bullshit and am I the only one who is completely sick of it?
Hey, Phil, how about you leave out the stupid back-handed Trump hating nonsense? You don't
need to write it, but if you do? Have your editors cut it from your writing. It just makes
you look stupid, and many won't even continue reading your article. As they should. No one
deserves to be read who would write such facile, petty nonsense.
ANY country, real or satelite which allows ""diplomats from 5-headed beast or anglo-terrorist
and marauding alliance deserve extinction.
God Bless DPRK!
If we "follow the money", Hillary's campaign was financed by the Israelis. An honest post
mortem on her loss would have focused attention on the huge influence of Israeli money on
American elections. The faked focus on Russian "meddling" could have been to divert any talk
of election "meddling" away from Israel's truly vast "meddling". (The Israelis routinely
distract by accusing others of their own crimes.) The Israelis control both the DNC and the
corporate media, so "Russiagate" could roll on virtually evidence-free. Fox was allowed to
criticize the "Russiagate" attack on Trump, but only to keep the kabuki conflict boiling.
Neither side ever mentioned Israel's "meddling", or in any way criticized Israel. To the
contrary, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity even agreed that Netanyahu would be a great American
president. So why did Israeli asset John Bolton just attack Trump, after Trump has given
Israel so much, including assassinating Soleimani? Maybe it's Trump's refusal to launch
Israel's next war? Maybe they don't really trust Trump? Maybe because on 9/11 Trump said he
didn't believe planes could have brought down the twin towers, and that explosives must have
been involved? Could Trump be in a deadly dance with the Israelis, riding a tiger?
Nuland wrote that Russia did "violate arms control treaties, international law, the
sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States " But
wait a minute, doesn't she really mean Israel, not Russia?
And in retrospect, America's penchant for throwing little countries against the wall has
never worked all that well. I'm thinking Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the
Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly
corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.
Nuland might hate Russia, but Obama gave back Crimea to Russia the rightful owner on a
Silver Platter. Russia has now easy access to Mediterranean Sea. Obama then invited Russia
back to Syria, as the USSR was kicked out of Middle East by the Evil Kissinger after the Yom
Kippur War ..
@Mr. Hack Exactly,
it was a US financed provocation with a whole lot of extremely dumb stooges. Six years that
have passed since prove it again and again, every day.
Whatever; "Ukraine" is not a state, "ukrainians" are not a people, "ukraininan" is just
bastardized Russian/Polish mix, so to hell with this joke of a cuntry. Let Russia, Poland and
Hungary partition it.
" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by
a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by
a $5 billion budget, "
We could chalk this up to a lack of imagination on the part of our intrepid former CIA
scribbler, but anyone paying even cursory attention couldn't help but conclude that the Obama
administration didn't just tolerate, it choreographed, a plot against Trump in league with
foreign intelligence services.
I'm confident that neither a lack of imagination or garden-variety ignorance explains
Giraldi's narrative weaving. However open or obscured, staying on the remove Trump by any
means necessary team remains the smart, if treasonous, play.
You'll note that Russia is included in this no doubt incomplete list. It really is a
fool's errand to try to surmise for any of these foreign participants what of their actions
were opportunism as opposed to resigned self-protectiveness,
But, make no mistake, every single one, foreign powers, whether allies or adversaries, and
individuals and purportedly non-state entities, was promised goodies at the expense of the
American national interest.
That's anyone's guess at this point. We know surveillance state bottom-feeder Glenn
Simpson got at least $6M, and Stefan "Guttman" Halper about $1M. What do you think was
promised to foreign powers for playing ball? In the case of Russia, unless I miss my mark,
Nord Stream II was merely the down payment.
Maybe some day Giraldi will ask Brennan the contours of the deal he made Russia assistance
in throwing the election to Hillary in March, 2016:
" Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you
control China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe
financially. Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level,
the productive people of the world Germany and China then work for you."
Given all that has happened this year, I can unequivocally say that any white person who
joins the US military needs to have their head examined. And a US military bereft of white
people would be pretty much useless.
Bush was an out-and-out neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led,
Ok but the main reason 'Dubbya' went into Eye-Raq is because he wanted to 'get' Saddam for
having gone after 'Big Daddy' Bush I. The Neochoens provided the cover.
Bill Jones said:
I too find it appalling that these people move among us.
Yes but Nudelman is also a laughable character now who's shelf life has expired, I
hope.
Ignoring all arguments about who is on the side of the angels here.
There are a lot of countries that could hurt us badly in a shooting war, but we would
survive, and at the end of the day, they would not. However, there is one country, and only
one, that could completely erase us in a few hours, and that is Russia.
Seems insanely suicidal to run around poking the bear with a stick at every possible
opportunity.
For the gullible fans of Mr. Trump, who want so fervently to believe that he's trying to
change anything but the rhetoric:
When I searched to confirm the name of that "diplomat" standing next to Ms. Nuland, I
learned from an official website that he remains employed as such, now the face of Uncle Sam
in Greece.
Geoffrey R. Pyatt, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Career Minister, was
sworn in as the U.S. Ambassador to the Hellenic Republic in September 2016.
He served as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from 2013-2016, receiving the State Department's
Robert Frasure Memorial Award in recognition of his commitment to peace and alleviation of
human suffering in eastern Ukraine.
What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into a
gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?
If you can't handle the truth, just hit the Troll or Disagree button.
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance its own security , to include invading other
countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed
nearly twenty years later.
Great article, Phil. May I recommend one minor edit:
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance the Jewish State's security, to include invading
other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces
stationed nearly twenty years later.
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace'
crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?
First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and
morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And
they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to
locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse
starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can
achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire
2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.
And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to
at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means
replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.
What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great
Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In
the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long
game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push
the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on
reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia
naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they
intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great
Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.
Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of
Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For
them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and
Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.
@BL By the way, I
will give you the commanding heights Sad Story in absurdly abridged form.
China won the post-Cold War period hands down. From Tiananmen Square to Ising power on the
cusp of global hegemony in a quarter century. With the US paying the bill.
While there were clear indications to any honest observer years before, Snowden's coming
out signaled the public next phase of a years long operation in which the USG built a global
surveillance apparatus, including not the least of Americans, and then lost the whole shebang
to Russia, China and God Knows Who Else.
My view then -- and I have seen nothing to even suggest my informed speculation was wrong
-- was that the sky was the limit in terms of what the powers that be would gift in terms of
the national interest to protect themselves from exposure and a reckoning.
I would like anyone who disagrees to otherwise explain how USG policy became one of
driving China and Russia into a strategic alliance. To say nothing of putting obviously
compromised individuals, foreign assets, like Brennan at the apex of power.
Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review
a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
Uh huh. Read the NYT article -- Obama is no angel, but Giraldi should explain why
President Obama would set up, much less publicly reveal, weekly sessions in which both he and
the office of the president are grossly debased by the Director of the CIA?
In this article, this is the most important sentence in terms of showing how doomed America
is: Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to
review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
The DOOM is that no Liberal can ever acknowledge that as something a liberal, a sacred
black liberal at that, would do without being forced to do so by white conservatives.
That insanity lies at the heart of America and has since at least the Emancipation
Proclamation. It means that it is totally impossible to have a halfway meaningful 'liberal'
opposition to imperialism, because imperialism is always easily cast as doing good for the
downtrodden blacks and/or browns and/or yellows and/or Jews and/or Moslems.
Too late, too fat, & too ugly! Nuland already lost the beauty contest for Biden's
ventriloquist to Avril Haines, She-wolf of the DO. The rectal feedings will continue till
morale improves!
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene
pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair- blue eyed people who can
easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)
And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria . . .
More like the Castro District or Seattle, in fact.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration.
Trump fired John Bolton. Pompeo is at most a shadow of Bolton. That is rather the opposite
of resurgence. If the author could let go of his #NeverTrump bias he would be able to see
that Trump has run the NeoCons out of the GOP.
Trump tried to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan and ran into Deep State
obstructionism.
The Globalists tried to trick Trump into a Syria expansion by creating a Turkey/Syria
battle through areas controlled by U.S. Troops. Trump refused to be manipulated and pulled
U.S. Troops out of the kill sack. Does anyone still believe that myth about 'protecting
Syrian oil'? Only the mentally dim accepted that ludicrous cover story. It was flimsy excuse
to relocate out of the Deep State trap.
Prior U.S. administrations created huge problems in the ME by toppling Saddam and
emboldening Iran's theocracy. "Cut and Run" would guarantee a nuclear arms race in the
region. Trump's containment of Iranian colonial expansionism is working, albeit slowly. The
Rial continues to slide (now at ~200,000 to the USD). At some point, the Iranian people will
choose to get rid of their failed leaders and rejoin civilized society. Until then Trump's
containment is better than a Biden invasion.
_____
Trump has fundamentally reshaped the alignment of U.S. Politics. There is only one foreign
interventionist party. The SJW Globalist DNC now owns both the NeoConDemocrats and the R2P
crowd. The choice this November is clear:
-- Trump -- No New Foreign Wars
-- Biden -- Invasion of Ukraine, Iran, Libya, etc.
Nuland is just the tip of the iceberg in the ZUS government, which is infested with zionists
and has been in every administation since Wilson, they are the cause of every war since WWI
right down to the middle east and in the case of the middle east wars, the zionists and
Israel used their attack on the WTC to push America into the slaughter house for the greater
Israel project.
Read The Protocols of Zion and the book The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, there is
laid out the zionist one world zionist government.
@Larchmonter420 It
is little noticed that those Countries consumed by the evil Soviet Union have fared much
better in conserving their culture and sense of self, after they were upchucked in the early
'90s, than the Champions of Democracy of the West have done under the freedom and tutelage
bestowed by the US.
Funny dat.
Yes, Nudelman and her ilk are rabidly anti-Russian. But what they did in Ukraine revealed a
very different thing: globohomo elites are mentally degenerate, they cannot foresee even
immediate consequences of their moves. There was a joke in Russia that for the coup in 2014
in Kiev Obama deserves a medal "For the liberation of Crimea" (there was a medal of this name
in WWII). There was another joke, that Ukraine without Crimea is like a purebred stallion
without balls.
Neocons planned to make Ukraine a battering rum against Russia. They did not understand
that a log rotten through and through cannot serve as a battering ram. Now they are stuck
with that wreck ("you break it – you own it" rule) and don't know what to do with it.
Previous US administration and DNC big shots (Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and Co) used it mostly
as a rout of stealing US taxpayers' money. Current administration does not seem to have even
this use for it. The US keeps proving the age-old wisdom that when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere. Putin appears to have a huge stock of popcorn.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "
Meaning, if you have governments in the first place, sooner or later, you will have
war, either on the people inside a country [eg the war on drugs], or on citizens of another
country, or both at the same time [i.e. what we have now].
Outside of complete dissolution of all states [ preferable in my opinion, but unlikely
given the general mindset of the brainwashed masses worldwide], and given the systemic need
of all states everywhere for evermore wars on their own, and on others populations, the only
[ imperfect, and perhaps temporary], solution I see is to 95% downsize the federal government
and restore the constitution and bill of rights and to thereby restrict the federal
government to its original limits, and to even design new, more effective ways to prevent the
federal governments further expansion beyond those original limits/chains.
"..the very idea of the State itself is poisonous, evil, and intrinsically destructive.
But, like so many bad ideas, people have come to assume it's part of the cosmic firmament,
when it's really just a monstrous scam.
It's a fraud, like your belief that you have a right to free speech because of the First
Amendment, or a right to be armed because of the Second Amendment. No, you don't. The U.S.
Constitution is just an arbitrary piece of paper entirely apart from the fact the whole thing
is now just a dead letter. You have a right to free speech and to be armed because they're
necessary parts of being a free person, not because of what a political document
says.
Even though the essence of the State is coercion, people have been taught to love and
respect it. Most people think of the State in the quaint light of a grade school civics book.
They think it has something to do with "We the People" electing a Jimmy Stewart character to
represent them.
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the
United States (2004)
For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually
requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting
for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so.
February 26, 2015 The Neoconservative Threat To World Order
Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the
Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the
friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev
succeeded in establishing.
@Bill Jones There
is even funnier thing now with covid: the countries that do not toe the imperial line,
Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, are doing a lot better than imperial sidekicks like Brazil,
Colombia, or Peru. Rephrasing old Russian saying, "tell me who is your friend, and I tell you
how stupid you are".
@Rahan To make the
troll work even better, Venezuela could then send 20 guys in zodiacs to motor into DC and NY
harbor to try to take over Dulles and LaGuardia airports, and when they got captured, they
could just trade them for those 2 knuckleheads we sent down there. They could also claim that
they're here to capture Trump; that might just get him handed over.
Rahan, you have to send your brilliant joke to CJ Hopkins and to Caitline Johnstone to get
if more exposure.
@anonymous You
appear to be saying that a career diplomat who served in Ukraine when the US did or supported
bad things there should not have been appointed as Ambassador to Greece. Is that a correct
understanding of what you mean to convey? If so, how does this reflect on Trump when the
appointment was made two months before he was elected?
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance.
That's pretty much it, they just use different rhetoric to appeal to their constituencies.
Might makes right; there is no other law beside bandit law. The Russians have been a barrier
to the US being able to spread itself over the entire globe and rob everyone weaker than
itself. The US was behind all these atrocious jihadi mercenaries even as it's pretended to be
against them. The Russians stopped the US project of terror and overthrow in Syria and that's
outraged the Americans who thought they could act as they pleased. Libya was destroyed by the
wonderful, hip Obama who many stupid Americans still think was a nice person. But with
Russia, they can huff and puff but can't blow their walls down. They have a military that can
deter the Americans unlike all the other smaller victim states.
@AnonFromTN The
second joke should be withdrawn from active service. It is that of the naughty schoolboy who
will say anything for a cheap laugh – in this case "balls. A well bred gelding will win
races, be just as well fed and housed as the entire stallion and much more contentedly
placid.
Right after those two Israeli puppets were dancing and talking on their open lined cell
phones outside on Shitskyia St. in Kyiv, Ukraine, in front of the US Embassy, Ambassador Py
Rat ended up going to the US Embassy in Greece, in order screw the Greek people some more,
and Cookies Nuland ended up -- F n what's left of the island of Cyprus. US Embassies are
nothin more than CIA offices and only idiots would leave them in their country.
"She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of
the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war
crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only
one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand."
I think this is a mistake. I think Miss Nuland knows exactly how large and intense the US
ft print is and belies it should be larger and more intense. There are sincere people who
believe that the US must as duty make the work safe for democracy even the means of getting
there is any and everything bt democratic because in the long run -- the benefits will
outweigh.
and as proof of er sincerity -- it's not just Russia (Though I understand why Dr. Giraldi
would like to tackle one territorial issue at a time makes sense)
@Biff I've heard
another version of this.
Ukrainians are asked:
– If you believe that Crimea belongs to you, why don't you fight for it?
– We are not stupid, Russian troops are there.
– But you say that there are Russian troops in Donbass, yet you fight.
– That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
@chris
Thank you for the kind words, Chris,
You're very welcome to share the gist of the joke anywhere you like, and add to it whatever
you think works:)
I agree that "backing Moscow into a corner with no way out" is a dangerous strategy. This is
not the Cold War: in the Cold War the United States and USSR were able to keep peace, a
balance of power, an equilibrium where neither side's vital interests were threatened. Russia
had a buffer zone: not today. America was at the height of its global economic power: today
it is being overtaken by China. In the Cold War the big powers avoided nuclear Armageddon
– though at times appeared to come close – because they were able to. The
misguided thinking today is: "we got through the Cold War we can get this". This is not a
re-run of 1945-1991: it is the lead-in to the holocaust that period skillfully avoided. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Mr. Hack I was in
Ukraine and was a resident in 2008 even. Yanuk was a thief, but this was SOP in Kyiv –
how do you think they all get rich ? Sure the people were protesting about corruption, but
anyone who was really there know how easy it was to spread the riot when the western neo
nazis are bussed in, the " cookies" end up being money paid to certain groups and out of work
peasants. Yanuk was trying to short sell Ukraine's farmland etc. to many corporations and
countries. He was taking money from Monsanto, Carghill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa Univ. and
even China started to build a deep water port in Crimea , in order to grow on the 200,000
hectares they wanted to lease. Russia always gave the Ukies a decent loan or gaz price { esp.
for Princess Jewish Tymoshenko who up the price for her takings }, not to mention the million
or so that worked in Ru. A Perfect storm , for as far back as when , in 2005, Senator B Obama
, brought 40 million in cash to Donetsk, in order to de- arm the Ukrainian military. This
Maidan and Ukrainian plan was well planned – decade or two earlier – Pravda !
Mr. Giraldi ; do you think Vicky is angling for the Secretary of State position in the
upcoming Biden administration?
Have you given any thought to who Biden will be told to select for the Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor slots where they will be leading the
charge for war?
I think it is possible that Bolton may have been angling for one of those spots with his
current book tour, but that has obviously blown up in his face.
@Wizard of Oz OK,
as you give off more than a whiff of effete hack yourself, I'll bite.*
Yes, that's what I mean to convey. It reflects on President Trump -- and, more
particularly, his sham campaign rhetoric -- that the likes of Mr. Pyatt remain in place with
another Exceptional! plaque on his lavish office.
Do you mean to convey that the President can't replace ambassadors at will, or that they
have tenure?
-- --
*Before interacting with this "Wizard of Oz" character, be aware that he/she/they often
draw other commenters in with questions and requests that are seldom resolved to
his/her/their satisfaction, or with cryptic insinuations that distract discussion.
The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter, the
technique known as "sock puppetry." See under Mr. Derbyshire's February 15, 2019, article
comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting as
"Anon[436]."
Among this website's oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.
@GMC Let's give
credit where credit is due. Yes, the Empire wanted to buy Ukraine, preferably on the cheap
(considering that the goods were not of the first quality). But for the sale to proceed you
need two sides. You need a fraudster and a sucker. You cannot consider morons who sold their
would-be country for beads blameless. Not to mention that many local thugs got a cut. Smarter
thieves took their loot and ran away, like Yats. Dumber and/or greedier ones, like Porky and
Kolomoisky, remained and kept trying to steal more. The suckers (the rest of the population)
are left holding the bag. Stupidity is always punished in the end, but not always so
severely.
@GMC Although one
has to be careful in dealing with the large multinationals, the only way to obtain large
contracts is through cooperation with them. Opening things up and building ports would have
resulted in large employment opportunities for the masses, adding some stability to the
Ukrainian economy.
I'm not aware of Senator Obama's dealings in Donetsk to "de-arm the Ukrainian military".
Please do tell me more.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and
they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The
Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. Second, our
Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of Trotskyites, but of all
Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For them, Russia always is
the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
So basically, they're Jewish parasites with delusions of grandeur who attached themselves
to the British Empire and American Empire (destroying the US Constitution along the way), and
are using its decaying WASP blood and treasure to set up an Anglo-Zionist Empire, which will
then morph into a Zionist Empire, which will then move its headquarters to Israel, which will
then fulfill "chosen" Zionist Jewish supremacist prophecy and theology of ruling the
world.
In other words, they're not only parasites, but they're insane parasites. Really, could
there be any other kind? The insanity is baked into the parasite.
What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into
a gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?
I am confident that, in my lifetime, the truth about how that unfolded will never be
known. The intel for the hit came from the Israelis through the same people that have been
undermining him from Day 1. Did Trump actually know Soleimani was there on a peace mission?
Did Trump know that an Iraqi leader would be with Solmeimani? Why would de-escalation of
tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia be bad for Trump who has been avoiding staring wars?
Was Mattis in on that game?
Once the hit was done, the rest is creating a narrative for diversion. It was a shit show,
to be sure, but I suspect there is a lot more to this than what we are being fed.
' Michael Ledeen, "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small
crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean
business." '
Now, if that 'small, crappy little country' could be Israel, me 'n Mike could have a real
meeting of minds.
' Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good
policy '
That might well be, but maybe there is a way out.
Think maybe if Russia abandoned its support for a state in Syria and let Israel have her
little way with the place that she might suddenly be left in peace?
Nahhh couldn't possibly be a connection. How could that influence our policy?
' Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War '
This always happens with winners -- be they World War One generals or Cold Warriors.
If, due to other factors entirely, they happen to finally triumph, it all becomes
attributed to their incredible genius.
The oddity is that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did. It was a massively
unattractive system with no natural constituency beyond its own bureaucrats. Yes, it had to
be kept at bay, and we did do that -- but we basically merely watched while it collapsed
under the weight of its own internal flaws.
the advice that has been attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, "Every ten years
or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
Giraldi's first paragraph is spot on. But after corona dealing the economy a heavy blow, I
don't think Trump will start a war before the election. I don't think he would have done that
otherwise either, though there was some risk. Trump has caved numerous times, he is an idioht
when it comes to hiring his enemies hoping to appease them, but there is no question that he
opposes mass immigration and invasions.
I suppose most people here know this, but let's look at how many of the pro-war names
mentioned belong to the 2.5 % "Chosen":
George Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
Hillary Clinton
Michael Ledeen (White, but studied history under *George Mosse, immigrated from Germany)
Reuel Gerecht
Dan Senor
*Richard Perle
*Paul Wolfowitz (The architect of the Afghan-Iraq invasions, who gathered support for them in
Congress and organized the pro-war communication)
*Douglas Feith (would have been the Sec. of Defense if people hadn't objected too much, as he
was infamous after the Iran-Contra affair)
*Eliot Abrams
*Lewish "Scooter" Libby of the dead eyes
*Robert Kagan
*Frederick Kagan
*Victoria Nuland
*Madeleine Albright (Half a million dead Iraqi children from starvation sanctions and bombing
the infrastructure for twelve years was "worth it")
That's six Whites and nine Tribe.
If those nine hadn't existed millions would have been alive today, there would have been
no flood of Somalis, Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians to Europe, and the U.S. and the Middle East
would have been far better off.
@Mr. HackI
applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western oriented
country
You are joking surely? The country is run by Jews from top to bottom – although Jews
are 1% of the population. Since the Maidan putsch, there has only been a string of Jewish
presidents and prime minsters. The guy responsible for investigating corruption was recently
sacked and replaced by a Jew.
Post Maidan, 3 TV stations were shut in Kharkov alone. Everything is controlled and is
lies. Journalists and politicians who don't do as they are told are shot. No one is arrested.
The latest victim was an opposition politician who was executed by a shot in the head in his
parliamentary office a few weeks ago. No Jew ever suffers such a fate.
He was not "found dead". He was killed by a bullet to the head.
It was not in "central Kyiv". It was in the parliament building.
All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it
considered necessary to enhance its own security,
I see Geo has already pointed out the obvious absurdity that any of these criminal were in
the least bit worried bout US security. If anything, they were overtly sacrificing US
security on behalf of an enemy state. Not sure why you write stuff like that Mr. G, unless
you just expect people to ignore it as perfunctory tripe, but there are some, no doubt, who
read those words and assume you are actually saying they care about the US. When you and I
both know they don't.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something
called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria.
Nope.
They were and are both amoral, opportunistic zio-whores, whose only ideology is what's
good for Clinton and Obama, respectively. Clinton didn't bomb Serbia out of some humanitarian
love of freedom and democracy, and Obama didn't destroy Libya and Syria except to serve his
zio-masters. Duh.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather
than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good,
I was telling my gal the other day, that Trump could be The One to End the Fed, by
allowing Goldman Sachs and the rest of them to feast at the Treasury to their heart's
content.
I reminded her of Jackson's quote about hurting ten thousand families, in order to save
fifty thousand. And in a similar vein, Trump could be setting up the collapse of the ZUS
economy, which will hurt hundreds of millions, but if he could collapse the dollar, he very
well might save billions of people's lives.
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have
used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won,
you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You
tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten
thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go
on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of
vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you
out."
– Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)
Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European
role
I beg to differ, Mr. G.
I would posit that her most famous utterings were when she imperiously demanded that "Yats
is our guy". IOW, the way she was promoting "democracy" in Ukraine, was by corrupting the
system with 5 billions of tax payer lucre- to the point where she, *personally* could decide
who- (Jewish banker) would be president in a nation thousands of miles away. That's
how the ZUS promotes "democracy" in foreign lands. (and, I suspect that it was the way that
call was leaked, that is the fount of all the rage at Russia, for "Russian hacking', breaking
long-standing diplomatic protocols against exposing other nation's treachery and corruption
to the 'little people').
Nuland's view . Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the
sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and
Europe
for Nuland to talk about 'International law and the 'integrity of European elections'.. is
like Jerry Sandusky lecturing people on child welfare.
That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level,
OK, so not only Nuland but also John Bolton is screeching that Trump is the disaster of
our times.
Not since John McCain has a mad dog Zionist insider been so full of hate for Trump.
Hmm..
as Russia's threat to the liberal world has grown."
the more she talks, the more I like Putin.
And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine
.
they think chutzpah, (arr0gent contempt for decency and in-your-face hypocrisy), is a
virtue.
All Americans and Europeans and everyone else, should see that Putin is the world's
remaining statesman. We should all do everything we can to support Putin's earnest efforts to
rein in the murderous, zio-glob menacing the planet today.
Thank you Mr. G. for exposing Nuland's treachery, hypocrisy and J-supremacist agenda.
@Chris Moore
Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell made alliance with Jewish bankers, then congregated in the
Netherlands. The deal, which financially was necessary to him securing Puritan rule and to
then wage more war against non-WASP natives of the British Isles, included Jews being allowed
legally live in and own property in England, including to build a synagogue, with Jews
exempted from all requirements that the Puritan government made on al natives of the British
Isles.
Jews are not parasites on WASP culture. WASP culture is born of a Judaizing heresy, and
Jews therefore have always been partners in WASP culture.
You need to spend a large amount of time learning the rise of Jews with the growth of the
British Empire. Then put that with the rise of Jews as part of the American empire.
And then unless you are brain dead, you will see that WASP culture and Jews go together.
Jews are not parasites on WASP culture. Jews and WASPs are symbiotic, at the expense of
90-95% of non-WASP whites.
Jun 23, 2020 Online Event: U.S. Grand Strategy in the Middle East
While prominent voices in Washington have argued that U.S. interests in the Middle East
are dwindling and will require the United States to "do less" there, Jake Sullivan argued in
a recent Foreign Affairs article that the United States should be more ambitious using U.S.
leverage and diplomacy to promote regional stability.
@Curmudgeon Did you
not hear the recording of President Trump's disgusting speech weeks later at a fundraiser,
recounting the hit to his rapt backers? I'm pretty sure that it was posted in a comment to
one of Dr. Giraldi's columns.
You might also want to review Linh Dinh's June 12, 2016 "Orlando Shooting Means Trump For
President."
Voting for any of these Red/Blue characters merely moves the boot around on your face.
Victoria Nuland recommends that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to
lead the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia --
one that builds on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable,
including among his own citizens." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to
interfere in the workings of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made
against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine
We live in the dark, convinced by our public media and our insincere leaders that we
are heroes and freedom fighters. In reality the opposite is true: we are the plunderers, the
ravagers, deceiving ourselves to do the dirty work of the manipulators who have twisted our
minds with trinkets and false accounts of the people we kill and the countries we ruin in
order to steal their treasures.
And the saddest part -- the punchline that proves how stupid we are -- is that we never
profit from the invasions we are cynically ordered to conduct. The bounty always goes to the
swindlers pulling the strings, and we, as the agents of banditry, time and again, are always
left to suffer the same fate of the people we have robbed when we are robbed ourselves, of
not only our treasures, but of our dignity, shortly before we are robbed of our lives.
It is the way history has always gone. The ignorant masses are persuaded to commit the
crimes of the rich and as the unwitting perpetrators, we ultimately suffer the same fate as
the victims, while the rich snicker in their palaces and plot their next swindle.
@Agent76'While
prominent voices in Washington have argued that U.S. interests in the Middle East are
dwindling and will require the United States to "do less" there, Jake Sullivan argued in a
recent Foreign Affairs article that the United States should be more ambitious using U.S.
leverage and diplomacy to promote regional stability.'
I'm confused. Iraq is more stable for our intervention?
If we 'did less' in the Middle East, it could only promote regional stability.
Most of our actions there are pretty clearly calculated to promote instability, not
stability. Promoting anarchy in Syria, baiting Iran into a war, acquiescing in a coup in
Egypt, sanctioning Israel's continual bombing raids
The late Michael Collins Piper hosts a call in program and his guest is Jim Condit Jr. The
topic of conversation is Father Mordechi Martin, a Zionist spy who infiltrated and subverted
the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, it indeed seems that Jewish Supremacists have achieved full spectrum
dominance.
@Mr. Hack US
control of the Ukraine will mean that Jews will own almost all of it and the land will be
flooded with blacks and Mohammedans, with gays made another sacred group.
Anglo-Zionist Empire does what Anglo-Zionist Empire does.
I passed your comment on to CJ Hopkins with link to the source. Maybe he can use it in his
column. It needs a much greater audience than in the comment section here.
@Chris Moore The
public does not understand that the system is actually "two party tyranny". This system is
designed to divide and conquer, and it works. Compound this with the fact that many people
get their information from simply "googling" terms and phrases as opposed to actually digging
deep and reading books and other sources for information. Combine this with the sad state of
affairs in our public education system – where students are not taught to think or ask
questions but to behave, conform, and memorize information. With regard to the methods being
used in our foreign policy and now, subsequently, being used here to foment chaos, check out
the following resource. You will see that what is going on is simply UCW –
Unconventional Warfare, and we have perfected the technique abroad.
NEW: Alan Dershowitz's attorney confirms that his client has access to Virginia
Giuffre's sealed depositions. Those depositions reveal that she was directed by Jeffrey
Epstein to have sex with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak & Victoria's Secret's Les
Wexner.
@Hegar That's three
goyim and twelve "chosen". Ledeen (founder and former member of board of advisors of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs – doesn't look goy to me), Gerecht
(Israelis say he's one of them) and Senor are Jewish.
How can the US "lead democracies" not being one of them?
didn't Vicky Nuland lead the Ukrainian democracy?
it isn't ridiculous, all it takes is shekels, as always, and an understanding of
semantics. Words like 'democracy' are like 'liberated', or 'terrorists'.
The ZUS "liberated" Iraq from the "terrorists" who were ruling it, and imposed
"democracy". Just like we "liberated" Germany, and "liberated" Libya, and so many other
places, where the ZUS leads 'democracies'.
You see how easy it is, once you understand how to interpret the words they use?
America is helping to liberate Palestine from terrorists, so that the Palestinians can
enjoy democracy.
Today the Crimea is suffering under a regime that seized her by aggression and force, and
so America would like to liberate the people of Crimea, and lead them to democracy.
Jewmerica is controlled by Zionists and their operatives like Jew Nuland. Add Trump and Pence
to the list too. The Presidency has been controlled by the Zionist Jews since Woodrow Wilson.
Almost all of Congress is in the pocket of aIPAC and other Jew organizations. The Zionist
Jews drive all the wars and conflicts, foment the false flags like the fake Floyd, Sandy
Hook, Los Vegas etc. The Global Jew Bankers made immune from prosecution by our shabbos goy
Congress have stolen trillions of the the country's wealth. First after 911 (also a false
flag for Greater Israel) then with the bailouts for the super rich in 08 and now the
monumental 6 trillion theft for their Wall St. buddies under cover of the fake Corona virus.
The goyim must be propagandized and the target demonized before the Israeli Foreign Legian
(U.S. military) is sent in to force another extortion for the Jews. this is what they did
twice to Germany and to Japan. Same thing in Iraq and Libya. The Zionists have so far failed
in Syria and Iran. Even after getting Israel's best friend ever in the White House who
abrogated our treaty with the Iranians and has lied constantly about both countries, launched
rockets against the Syrians and accused Assad of gassing his own people.
The Zionsits cannot make progress without war, conflict and hatred. Once the goyim are
whipped up with enough war sentiment against the Russians and Chinese and the two countries
have built up sufficient military capability they will most likely join forces with a nuclear
attack against Jewmerica. this will probably result in a stalemate that can then be used as a
precursor to the global totalitarian NWO.
Serbia deserved it. They were conducting ethic cleansing with concentration camps, rape
camps, etc
idiocy
they were fighting some of the worst scum on the planet; KLA human and narco-traffickers
attempting to murder enough Serbs so they could steal the ancient Serbian land of Kosovo.
Zio-style – by terrorizing the legitimate inhabitants into fleeing for their lives- to
they could simply steal the land for themselves.
The trial against Milosevic was a sham and a fraud. And Milosevic was humiliating the ICC
in open court, so they poisoned/assassinated him in his cell.
But, I suppose the case could be made that if the Serbs deserved it, it was because
they allowed the Albanians to immigrate into Kosovo in transformative numbers in the first
place, and just as the Zi0s know, demographics = destiny.
The whites of South Africa made the same mistake. The whites of Europe are very busy also
making the exact same mistake, just as they are in North America and Oceana.
One day they'll wake up, and discover that now they and they're children are now on
the block, with their school girls being gang-raped wholesale and their lands taken from
them, and like the Serbs, they'll say, 'golly, who'd have ever thunk that inviting in stone
age invaders is of questionable prudence.
@Druid55 That is
the western MSM sugared up version of what happened in Yugoslavia. Western MSM learned their
lesson about being truthful about war when US and friends were in Vietnam.
Lies and lies only come from western MSM these days so wars and regime change games can go
on with anyone noticing or caring.
Western MSM notifies their puppet readers that all the US and friends does is
"humanitarian" stuff these days. Most puppet readers lap up this junk.
March 24, 1999 will go down in history as a day of infamy. US-led NATO raped Yugoslavia.
Doing so was its second major combat operation.
It was lawless aggression. No Security Council resolution authorized it. NATO's
Operation Allied Force lasted 78 days.
Washington called it Operation Noble Anvil. Evil best describes it. On June 10,
operations ended.
From March 1991 through mid-June 1999, Balkan wars raged. Yugoslavia "balkanized" into
seven countries. They include Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia and Slovenia.
Enormous human suffering was inflicted. Washington bears most responsibility.
@Druid55 More MSM
Jew propaganda. The Zionists wanted this area to remain fractured and weak (Balkanized) so
that the unified Yugoslavia could not oppose their plans. The Zionists intend to control
pipelines running from Middle East into Europe. This would compete against Russia that now
supplies most of the gas. All wars are about money, power and territory, this war was no
exception. The Zionists need to control all energy sources and transportation routes in order
to achieve hegemony.
"It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he
has not started any new wars"
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. The reasons israel's trump colonials
have not started new militsry invasions are mainly two. The trump reime is in the middle of a
military modernization. The american zionazi colony fell behind militarily as they ran proxy
terrorists and drug mafia support/colonial policing ops. Fighting wars againat those who can
actually hurt them back became obsolete, or so the "end of history" neocons figured. Now they
are outclassed and they can't pick on someone capable of shooting back effectively.
As for the second part, the likud colonial trump regime is doing its best to attack
zionazia"s rivals any way they can mimus actually sending in troops. Times have changed, the
oligarchs do war by other means than troop invasion now. The economic, biological and psywar
aspects are being used full tilt by israeloamerica. What they lack the means to do on the
field of battle, israel's war criminals and quislings are more than making up for it by other
means.
The trump quislings have vastly increased international strife across the board and are
decidedly more war mongering than israel's previous american colonial governors.
The Zionists wanted this area to remain fractured and weak (Balkanized)
I agree with all your posts.
I'd just add to this one, that by bombing Serbia, (on behalf of Muslim invaders), they
were accomplishing several things.. They were ending the post WWII International Laws against
unilateral military might by strong nations against weaker ones in Europe. With that act,
they declared with bombs that the ZUS is now The Unilateral Power, and that the International
Laws against Aggressive War was now moot.
By bombing a White Christian nation on behalf of Islam, they were also tossing a bone to
Islam, as a trade off for the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Who in our times is going to
complain about bombing white people? And Muslims would cheer it.
Also, as ((Gen. Wesley Clark)) explained about his bombing campaign on Serbia:
"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century
idea and we are trying to transition it into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with
multi-ethnic states."
– NATO's Supreme Commander, Gen. Wesley Clark
so there were myriad reasons for why ((they)) bombed Serbia into handing over its ancient
and sacred lands.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance."
It's neocons and neolibs, the "liberal interventionists" are as liberal as the neocons are
conservative. Agree about the style and substance, though, think of the disgusting things as
different/somewhat rivals management teams working for the same employer. Like the likud and
labor political blocks in israel. Goals are the same, some differences in how to achieve
them.
One sees this same phony duo-political scam across the capitalist "west" where right wing
political parties dominate wholesale.
Orwell called this "newspeak". That's now the language of libtards.
thanks
and not just shitlibs, but across the entire length and breadth of our culture and society
this Ministry of Truth-imposed doublethink masquerades as language intended to inform and
explain, when it does the opposite.
George Will and Sean Hannity use newspeak with the same alacrity as Lawrence O'Donnell or
Rachel Maddow. Israel has to defend itself. Putin's aggression and Russian
meddling in our democracy.
'Quantitative easing' as a doubleplusgood expression for human history's most colossal
case of mass-swindling the world has ever known.
it's everywhere, and the more it isn't noticed, the more sinister and diabolical it
is.
It's like that Twilight Zone episode of the aliens that only wanted to 'serve man'.
'We're here to serve you'.
The writers of that episode certainly must have been thinking of a certain tribe of
'philanthropists' and owners of 'human rights' organizations.
@anonymous Thank
you for clarifying that though you do not give any evidence beyond reason for suspicion about
his role in Ukraine as to why this career diplomat should be sacked from his Ambassadorship
to Greece.
As for israel's nuland neanderthal*, this is a critter about as zionazi low as one can get.
What she posits come directly from israel and its international domination freakshow. The
critter is about as far right/neocon psychopathy as that subhuman element gets.
The use of these freaks by both american dem and rep colonial governorships shows how
these are simply psywar front outfits pursuing the same goals for the zionazi master.
@Wizard of Oz My
comment (#35) that you're typically and oh-so-diplomatically trying to obscure concerned the
naïveté of those who think that Mr. Trump ever intended to (or could) effect any
change in Uncle Sam's treatment of other countries.
But as to your concern for this "career diplomat," do you think he's too good to "be
sacked" and have to work at an honest job?
@Colin Wright If a
politicians lips are moving they are lying. This comes from the war parties think tank and
everything they say is the total opposite every time. This group gives me great insight into
thier plans and why I even bothered to share this here today. Thanks Wright!
@AnonFromTN
Democracy is a subversive term used by the Zionists, MSM and many politicians as well as lots
of other people that should know better. Democracy results in mob rule that will always lead
to tyranny.
The word democracy does not occur in either the Declaration of Independence or it's
companion document the Constitution. That is because the founders believed it to be the worst
form of government. James Madison stated that democracies "have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths."
It is no mistake that the word democracy is widely used. Democracies work in the Elites
favor because they can steer the chaos then put their system in place when the democracy
falls apart.
The founders established a system of sovereign states in a limited Republic of laws. That
was the foundation of our success, not democracy.
@anonymous For an
apprentice pedant you are not doing well. You seem to have overlooked Trump's very big
changes in the treatment of one major foreign country, namely China.
And I am disappointed that you don't realise how much the US needs the institutional
memory and the skills of career diplomats when so many ambassadorships are given to
completely unqualified and unsuitable donors to the president's election campaign.
@Druid55 Hardly
anyone died. No planes used and all accounted for. Social Security Death Register about the
same as usual for that day in N.Y. Bodies "jumping" out were dummies. Another false flag for
the Zionist agenda of wars for Israel.
Jew supremacists like Nuland & her fellow (((treasonous war criminals))) care ultimately
about expanding the domain of "Greater Israel."
Fomenting hostility (if not outright war) between the world's largest primarily White
countries has always been what (((they))) do.
On the home front, Black Lives Matter terrorism would go nowhere without Jew supremacist
organizing, funding, censoring, & intimidating. Not that the (((shysters))) actually give
a damn about Blacks!
@Anon Nuland is a
Jew. Nothing to see here. She is a nutbag who wants eternal war. Whatever Israel wants
.Israel gets. Whether it's Obama destroying Libya or constant friction with Russia it's the
Jewish control of everything.
@Jake Do you think
the Catholics were any less likely to sell out? The Catholic Church was infiltrated by the
cripto Jew Medicis with the placement of Leo X in 1513. The Founders of the Jesuit order were
also cripto Jews.
The Jews have infiltrated all the governments of any consequence. Jewmerica has been so
well infiltrated it would be more accurate to just term the situation an out in the open
takeover. The Jews could have never made much headway without the shabbos goys helping them.
The government of Jewmerica is full of traitors serving the Zionist Jew agenda.
@Ryan2 She is a
hard core Zionist Jew. She is in the clique with the most powerful criminal syndicate in
existence. And they are winning. Some of them may actually believe that they are still the
Chosen. Trump's Chabad Lubavich son-in-law and the Shiksa Princess are said to be disciples
of Rabbi Schneerson who taught that we Gentiles were just here to "hew wood and fetch water"
for the Jews. Judging from the words and deeds of the shabbos goy puppet actors like Trump,
Pence, Pelosi and almost the entire congress along with most governors, an observer would
think this is definitely true.
Jew supremacists won; Germany (& everyone else) lost.
If that wasn't the case, the world would know the Holocau$t mythology is an extortion
racket, and we wouldn't be fighting the Jews' criminal wars for them to this day.
@AnonFromTN
"Grabbing the Breadbasket of Europe The East-West competition over Ukraine involves the
control of natural resources, including uranium and other minerals, as well as geopolitical
issues such as Ukraine's membership in NATO. The stakes around Ukraine's vast agricultural
sector, the world's third largest exporter of corn and fifth largest exporter of
wheat,constitute a critical factor that has been often overlooked." Whereas Ukraine does not
allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture,Article 404 of the EU
agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed:
it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of
biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the
agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank
Piper Jaffray, "Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the "most promising
growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and
DuPont."" https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf
@Anon "Russia" is,
for US intelligence ALSO code for "French". The propaganda against Russia during the cold war
and beyond, also applies to "the French" [IMO].They both had a revolution , with world wide
consequences , both have the same color flag[ the US propaganda says that Russia modeled
their flag from the Netherland flag, but I suspect it is modeled from the French flag. The
Americans cant be too blatant about it , but that is what is going on; anti Russia animus and
propaganda is also anti French animus and propaganda. [ during the cold war, my French
relative who had been a communist , went to Russia to see what it was like. She was
disappointed .When she subsequently tried to visit my family here in the US, she was stopped
art the airport and told she could not enter the US because she had been to Russia. This was
the 1960's.Apparently this two countries and people were not polarized as the US and the
soviets were. A kind of mutual respect or even admiration existed perhaps. Maybe I'm barking
up the wrong tree, but that has been my sense for decades. Nuland's anti European/ anti
russian animus is not surprising; its rather ubiquitous in the US and when they say EU they
have primarily in mind the French!
"... Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control. ..."
The drama eventually ended with President Donald Trump pulling U.S. peacekeepers out of
Syria -- and then sending them
back in . One hundred thousand
Syrian civilians were displaced by an advancing Turkish army, and the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces turned to Russia for help. But U.S. forces never fully withdrew -- they are
still stuck in Syria defending oil wells .
Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including
Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish
alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it
spiralled out of control.
Pompeo issued a statement on Thursday night denouncing Bolton's entire book as "a number of
lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods."
"Why
does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump in the throat?"
This how Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to address the fateful day in 1941, when
Germany invaded Russia, with an extraordinarily detailed article on June 19: "75th
Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future."
Citing archival data, Putin homes in on both world wars, adding important information not
widely known, and taking no liberties with facts well known to serious historians. As for the
"lump in the throat", the Russian president steps somewhat out of character by weaving in
some seemingly formative personal experiences of family loss during that deadly time and
postwar years. First, the history:
"On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army
in the world with the industrial, economic, and military potential of almost all Europe
working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany's satellites, military contingents
of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.
"The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of
catastrophe. By 1943 the manufacture of weapons and munitions behind the lines exceeded the
rates of military production of Germany and its allies. The Soviet people did something that
seemed impossible. the Red Army. no matter what anyone is trying to prove today ,
made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism Almost 27 million Soviet
citizens lost their lives, one in seven of the population the USA lost one in 320." [
Emphasis added .]
Somber factual recollections. Significant, too, is Putin's explicit criticism of "crimes
committed by the [Stalin] regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions."
Nor does he spare criticism of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, denouncing its "secret protocols
as "an act of personal power" which in no way reflected "the will of the Soviet people."
Putin notes that he asked for "the whole body of materials pertaining to contacts between
the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939," and found facts
"known to very few these days" regarding Moscow's reaction to German demands on carving up
Poland (yet again). On this key issue, he cites, "paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the
German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939", indicating that it throws new light on
Moscow's initial foot-dragging and its eventual decision to join in a more limited (for
Russia) partition.
Look it up. And while you're at it, GOOGLE Khalkhin Gol River and refresh your memory
about what Putin describes as "intense fighting" with Japan at the time.
The Russian president points out, correctly, that "the Red Army supported the Allied
landing in Normandy by carrying out the large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia", which
is actually an understatement. ( See: " Who Defeated the
Nazis: a Colloquy and " Once
We Were Allies; Then Came MICIMATT ."
"No matter what anyone is trying to prove today," writes Putin, who may have had in mind
the latest indignity from Washington; namely, the White House tweet on V-E day this year,
saying "On May 8, 1945,
America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis."
Lump in Throat
And why does one feel a lump rise in the throat? Putin asks rhetorically.
"The war has left a deep imprint on every family's history. Behind these words, there are
the fates of millions of people Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and
the memory.
"For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my
two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to
survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his
hometown. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more
years pass, the more I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother
on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.
"People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure how
their ancestors managed to persevere and win. We have a responsibility to our past and our
future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence,
I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic
War."
Putin was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) eight years after the vicious siege by
the German army ended. Michael Walzer, in his War Against Civilians , notes, "More
people died in the 900-day siege of Leningrad than in the infernos of Hamburg, Dresden,
Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taken together."
Putin notes that the "human truth" of war, "which is bitter and merciless, has been handed
down to us by writers and poets who walked through hell at the front. For my generation, as
well as for many others, their piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the
soul forever." He calls particular attention to a poem
by Alexander Tvardovsky , "I was killed near Rzhev," dedicated to those who fought the
formidable German Army Group Center.
Putin explains, "In the battles for Rzhev from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army
lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call
out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do
it to honor the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes", who were largely ignored in
the postwar years.
The Germans were hardly the first to invade Russia. It was occupied for more than two
centuries beginning in 1240 by Mongols from the east, after which its western neighbor was
Europe, the most powerful and expansionist region in world history into the 20th century.
After the Mongols were finally driven out, in came invaders from Lithuania, Sweden, the
Hanseatic League, Napoleon and, 79 years ago today, Hitler.
"The Poet of Russian Grief"
Out of this history (and before the Nazi attack on June 22, 1941) came the deeply
compassionate 19th century poet Nikolay Nekrasov, who, after Pushkin, became my favorite
Russian poet. His poem, "Giving Attention to the Horrors of War") moved me deeply; I have
carried it with me from my college days when I committed it to memory.
I visited Moscow in April 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the meeting of
American and Russian troops on the Elbe at the end of WWII. It was a heartwarming observance
of the victory of our wartime Grand Alliance and a reminder of what might be possible seven
decades later. I was asked to speak at the ceremony celebrating the meeting on the Elbe, and
was happy to be able to feature Nekrasov's poem to compensate for my out-of-practice
Russian.
On June 22, 2016, the 75th anniversary of the Nazi attack on Russia, I was in Yalta,
Crimea, with an American citizens' delegation and was again asked to speak. It was an even
more appropriate occasion to recite Nekrasov's "Giving Attention to the Horrors of War," and
I shall never forget the poignant experience of personally witnessing, and feeling, just why
Nekrasov is called "the poet of Russian grief." There were several people in the audience old
enough to remember.
Finally, I recited Nekrasov again, in Brussels, at the annual EU Parliament Members' Forum
on Russia in early December 2015. My talk came on the second day of the Forum; until then,
almost all of the talks were pretty much head-speeches. So I tried a little heart therapy and
called my presentation "Stay Human." The late Giulietto Chiesa, one of the Forum moderators
recorded my speech and posted it on his website.
The poem can be heard from
minute 11:00 to 17:00 . There is some voice-over in Italian, but I spoke mostly in
English and some of that is intelligible – audible, I mean. There is no voice-over for
the Nekrasov poem. I shall provide a translation into English below:
Heeding the horrors of war,
At every new victim of battle
I feel sorry not for his friend, nor for his wife,
I feel sorry not even for the hero himself.
Alas, the wife will be comforted,
And best friends forget their friend;
But somewhere there is one soul –
Who will remember unto the grave!
Amidst the hypocrisy of our affairs
And all the banality and triviality
Unique among what I have observed in the world
Sacred, sincere tears –
The tears of poor mothers!
They do not forget their own children,
Who have perished on the bloody battlefield,
Just as the weeping willow never lifts
Its dangling branches
Suffice it to add that I confess to being what the Germans call a "Putin Versteher"
– literally, one who understands Putin. (Sadly, most Germans mean no compliment with
this appellation; quite the contrary.) As one who has studied Russia for half a century,
though, I believe I have some sense for where Russian leaders "are coming from."
That said, like almost all Americans, I cannot begin to know, in any adequate sense, what
it is actually like to be part of a society with a history of being repeatedly invaded and/or
occupied – whether from East or West. In my view, U.S. policy makers need to make some
effort to become, in some degree, Putin Verstehers, or the risk of completely unnecessary
armed confrontation will increase still more.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
"... let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda. ..."
"... Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years. ..."
"... Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons. ..."
"... The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children. ..."
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National
Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter
Donolo, from 2018:
So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's
another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic
Barton.
Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five
years.
Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would
have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.
The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those
nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's
adult children.
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership
and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to
reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of
evidence in a court of law. Maybe
Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term
I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It
deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some
observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider
them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he
(Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in
media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see
Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an
arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time.
Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few
dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be
stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put
up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny
outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him
(Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.
It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against
anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme
that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who
then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so
he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby
parasite.
div> Yosemite Sam did it better. I would prefer a Foghorn Leghorn-type
character, for US diplomacy.
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy
expert he (Trump) respected.
Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!
Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping
orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally
and physically abused for objecting.
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a
warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people
Did John Bolton put his personal interests above the will of congress in an attempt to extort
the Ukrainian government? You're making a false equivalence. You seem to have a soft spot for
Trump. Bolton is an in-your-face son of a bitch, but Trump, Trump is just human garbage.
Pretty much a nothing burger if thats all he has got. Just a distraction. Trumps outrage just
meant help Bolton sell some books. Lol. People are so easy to fool.
I still think Bolton managing the operations as COG in Cheneys old bunker. Coming out for
a vacation while next phase is planned
Bolton is just another American arsehole. Nothing new. When they do not get their way, the y
always turn on their superiors, or those in charge. Bolton is just another "Anhänger"
personal gain is what motivates him.
He should have been a blot on his parents bedsheets or at least a forced abortion, but
unfortunately that did not happen...
The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him (Trump) and his voters.
Posted by: bob sykes | Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11
Trump thwarted Trump. Before he got elected, Trump mentioned his admiration of Bolton more
than once. Voters of Trump elected a liar and an incoherent person -- at time,
incomprehensible, a nice bonus. But it is worth noticing that Trump never liked being binded
by agreement, like, say, an agreement to pay money back to creditors, or whatever
international agreement would restrict USA from doing what they damn please.
Superficially, it is mysterious why Trump made an impression that he wants to negotiate
with North Korea with some agreement at the end. Was he forced to make a mockery from the
negotiation by someone sticking knife to his back?
Some may remember that Trump promised to abolish Affordable Care Act and replace it with
"something marvelous". The latest version is that he will start thinking about it again after
re-election. If you believe that...
Granted, Trump is more sane than Bolton, but just a bit, unlike Bolton he has some moments
of lucidity.
In conclusion, I would advocate to vote for Biden. If you need a reason, that would be
that Biden never tweets, or if he does, it is forgettable before the typing is done. Unlike
the hideous Trumpian productions.
"men fit to be shaved," Tiberius, on Bolton and Friedman.
he is the best & brightest we have. when a dreadful mouth is called for. his insights
into the Trump WH are probably as deep as his knowledge of VZ, Iran, Cuba, etc. he's a useful
idiot, a willing fool. like Trump, he's the verbal equivalent of the cops on the street, in
foreign "policy." another abusive father figure
reading the imperial steak turds - an American form of reading the tea leaves or goat
livers or chicken flight or celestial what have you. an emperor craps out a big hairy one
like Bolton and the priests and hierophants and lawyers and scribes come for a long, close up
inspection and fact-gathering smell of another steaming pile of gmo-corn-and-downer-cow-fed,
colon cancer causing, Kansas feed-lot raised, grade A Murkin BEEF. guess what they in their
wisdom find? Trump stinks.
Scotch Bingeington @ 6 -- "Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton
does not enjoy being John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable
to Merkel's face, come to think of it.
At last, someone who notices physionomy!
That face drips with false modesty, kind of trying to make his face say, "... look at
harmless old me..."
That walrus bushiness points at an attempt to hide, to camouflage his true thoughts, his
malevolence.
That pretended stoop, with one hand clutching a sheaf of briefing papers, emulating the
posture of deferential court clerks, speaks to a lifetime of a snake in the grass "fighting"
from below for things important to himself.
But those of us who have been around the block a couple times will know to watch our backs
around this type. Poisoned-tipped daggers are their fave weapons, and your backs are their
fave "battle space". LOL
This statement by Jeffrey Sachs may as well also describe America's leadership crisis: "At
the root of America's economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among
America's political and economic elite."
GeorgeV @ 8 -- "It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each
other a whore! How low has the US sunk."
And the US "leadeship" sends these types out to lecture other peoples on "values"? on how
to become "normal nations"? on how to "contain" old civilisations such as Iran, Russia,
China?
It is axiomatic that the stupid do not know they are stupid. Same goes for morals. The
immoral do not know they are immoral. Or, perhaps, as Phat Pomp-arse shows, they know they
are immoral, but do not care. Which makes one rightly guess that people like Bolt-On and him
must be depraved.
Yes, it may take centuries before the leadership in this depraved Exceptionally
Indispensable Nation to become truly normal again.
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do
so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters. by: bob sykes
11
I wondered about He King claims that Trump actually attempted to do those awful things, .
.. , I looked for evidence to prove the claim.. I asked just about every librarian I could
find to please show me evidence that confirms the deep state over rode Mr. Trump's actual
attempt to remove USA anything from Afghanistan and Syria. thus far, no confirming or
supporting facts have been produced. to support such a claim. Mr. Trump could easily have
tweeted to his supporters something to the effect that the damn military, CIA, homeland
security, state department, foreign service, federal reserve, women's underwear association
and smiley Joe's hamburger stand in fact every militant in the USA governed America were
holding hands, locked in a conspiracy to block President Trumps attempt to remove USA
anything from Afghanistan or Syria.. If Mr. Trump has asked for those things, they would have
happened. The next day there would have been parties in the streets as the militant agency
heads began rolling as Mr. Trump fired them each and everyone.. No firings happened, the
party providers were disappointed, no troops, USA contractors or privatization pirates left
any foreign place.. as far as I can tell. 500 + military bases still remain in Europe none
have been abandoned.. and one was added in Israel. BTW i heard that Mr. Trump managed to get
17 trillion dollars into the hands of many who are contractors or suppliers to those foreign
operations. I can't say I am against Trump, but i can ask you to show me some evidence to
prove your claim.
Trump searches for new slogan as he abandons Keep America Great amid George Floyd and covid
turmoil
The president has taken to inserting the term 'Transition to Greatness' into his remarks.
His 2016 slogan was 'Make America Great Again'. After election he polled audiences on whether
to go with 'Keep America Great'. He told CPAC this year and said at the State of the Union
'The Best is Yet to Come'. Tweaks come as he trails Biden in new NBC and CNN polls, as the
nation struggles with the coronavirus and protests over police violence.
Ukrainian police seize $6 Million in bribes paid to kill the new case into crooked
Burisma.
This money is a Followup to the multi-millions in bribes Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and
President Poroshenko earned to leverage their offices to kill the original case.
goals that you consider important are different from personal interests.
What personal interests has Trump actually advanced during his time as president. Leaving out
the fake allegations, I'm hard put to think of any. If you look at Trump's actual behaviour
rather than his bullshit or the bullshit aimed at him, I'm also hard put to think of anything
illegal he's done while in office that wasn't done by previous administrations.
US President Donald Trump sought help from Xi Jinping to win the upcoming 2020 election,
"pleading" with the Chinese president to boost imports of American agricultural products,
according to a new book by former national security adviser John Bolton. The accusations were
included in an excerpt from The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which is set to
be released on June 23. Bolton also wrote that Trump demonstrated other "fundamentally
unacceptable behaviour", including privately expressing support for China's mass interment of
Uygur Muslims and other ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang.*This video has been updated to
fix a spelling mistake.
@42 Mao I'm struggling to see how "pleading" with any country for it to purchase more US
goods is "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" from a US President.
Pleading to Xi for China to give, say, Israel preferential access to markets, sure.
I have lived in the United States for a total of 24 years and I have witnessed many crises
over this long period, but what is taking place today is truly unique and much more serious
than any previous crisis I can recall. And to explain my point, I would like to begin by
saying what I believe the riots we are seeing taking place in hundreds of US cities are not
about. They are not about:
* Racism or "White privilege"
* Police violence
* Social alienation and despair
* Poverty
* Trump
* The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
* The infighting of the US elites/deep state
They are not about any of these because they encompass all of these issues, and more.
It is important to always keep in mind the distinction between the concepts of "cause" and
"pretext". And while it is true that all the factors listed above are real (at least to some
degree, and without looking at the distinction between cause and effect), none of them are
the true cause of what we are witnessing. At most, the above are pretexts, triggers if you
want, but the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US
society.
Don't really want to take sides between those two odious characters, but I think there's a
difference in what the paper is saying.
One is about someone pursuing policy goals they favour, the other "personal interest".
From what I have seen so far, Bolton's main definition of Trump's "personal interest" is his
chances for re-election (rather than any personal business interest).
I think Bolton was happy for Trump to pursue the policy goals he favoured, at least when
they coincided with Bolton's!
How many people have cashed in on Trump so far? Countless numbers of them. An ocean of them.
Scathing books about Trump is one way to cash in on thr Trump effect, and the authors, many
of whom don't even write the book themselves, get promoted and their books promoted in the
mainstream media and elsewhere.
There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Trump. We know everything there is to
know about Trump. Some of us knew everything there was to know about him before he became
POTUS. And yet, there he is, sitting like the Cheshire Cat in the Oval Office, untouchable
and beyond reproach. Meanwhile, even more scathing books are in the pipeline because there's
money, so much money, to be made don't you know.
Bolton is a shitbird every bit as much as Trump is and in fact an argument can be made
Bolton is even worse and even more dangerous than Trump because if Bolton had his druthers,
Iran would be a failed state right about now and America would be bogged down in a senseless
money-making (for the defense contractors owned by the extractive wealthy elite) quagmire in
Iran just as it was in Iraq and still is in Afghanistan.
Colbert is all into the Bolton book because he and his staff managed to secure an
interview with Bolton. Bolton, of course, has agreed to this because it's a great way to
promote his book to the likes of Cher who is the perfect example of the demographic Colbert
caters to with his show. Some of the commercials during Colbert's show last night? One was an
Old Navy commercial where they bragged about how they're giving to the poor. The family they
used for the commercial, the recipients of this beneficence, was a black family. Biden is
proud of Old Navy because don't you know, poor and black are one and the same. In otherwords,
there are no poor people except black people. No, that's not racist. Not at all. Also,
another commercial during Colbert's show was for the reopening of Las Vegas amidst the
spreading pandemic. This is immediately after a segment where Colbert is decrying Republican
governors for opening southern states too early. The hypocritical irony is so stark, you can
cut it with a chainsaw.
Mao @ 45 quoting The Saker -- ".... the real cause of what is taking place today is the
systemic collapse of the US society."
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
In my 50 years of studying American society, I have learned to watch what US leaders do,
not what they preach. More profitable is to look at what declassified US documents tell us
about the truth, not what the presstitudes of the day pretend to dish up. Also, what other
world leaders might, in a candid moment, tell us about America.
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Afterall, a system that allows for creeping entrenched endemic corruption, is a crappy
system. It's the system that's the root of this and it's not just isolated to the United
States. It's civilization itself that's the root and what enabled civilization -- the spirit
in our genes as Reg asserts.
I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going
against Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one
of the most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely
better place when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go
back to hell.
I agree. They would, because they already have and continue to do so, coddle and provide
apologia for any and all monsters who decry Trump. Hell, I'm convinced they would clamor for
Derek Chauvin's exoneration if he vocally decried Trump. Chauvin would make the rounds on the
media circuit excoriating Trump and telling the world, contritely of course, that it was
Trump who made him do it and now he sees the error of his ways. He'd be on Morning Joe and
Chris Cuomo's and Don Lemon's shows not to mention Ari Melber and Anderson Cooper and
Lawrence O'Donnell. The conservatives and their networks, who have provided apologia for
Chauvin thus far, would now be his worst enemy. Colbert and Kimmel would have him on and
guffawing with him asking him how it felt to choke the life out of someone, laughing all the
way so long as he hates Trump and tells the world how much he hates Trump.
This world is an insane asylum, especially America. All under the banner and aegis of
progress. And to think, humanity wants to export this madness to space and the universe at
large. Any intelligent life that would ever make its way to Planet Earth, if ever, would be
well-advised to exterminate the species human before it spread its poison to the universe at
large. Not that that is possible, but just in case the .000000000001% chance of that does
miraculously manifest.
Concerning Trump "pleading" with Xi, it is only right for a leader to request others to
buy more US farm produce. We have only Bolton's word that the request was a plea. We also
have only Bolton's word that the request / plea was to seek "help from Xi Jinping to win the
upcoming 2020 election". Too early to believe Bolton. Wait till we see the meeting
transcripts.
Bolton also alleged that Trump exhibited "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" concerning
the Uygurs. Again, only Bolton's word. Even so, saying it is "unacceptable behavior" presumes
that China does wrong to incarcerate Uygurs. If not, ie, China either does not incarcerate
them, or if China has good moral grounds to do so, then Bolton is wrong to disagree with his
boss for uttering the right sentiment. Judging by how the anglo-zios shout about China's
"crime", I tend to think the opposite just might be the truth, and that says that Bolton is
simply mudslinging to sell books; score brownie points with the anglo-zios, virtue-signalling
for his next gig.
NYT writes Bolton direct US policy to fit his own political agenda,
while Bolton emphasizes Trump direct US policy in the way that pocket him most money.
Politician Bolton is consistent with his politician job (like it or not), Trump is
corrupted.
@56, I would argue that if one person could be both at the same time, that one person would
be Donald Trump. He's already proven, like Chauncey Gardner, he can walk on water. Seriously,
that excellent movie, Being There , starring the incomparable Peter Sellers, was about
Donald Trump's ascension to the Oval Office.
Using this 'quod licet jovi ...' the author apparently knows quite a bit of Latin, the dead
language!
But seriously, the nomination of Bolton who had always behaved like 2nd rate advisor, a 3rd
rate mcarthist cold warrior was a surprise to me. Such a short sighted heavily biased person
could be, yes, chosen a Minister or advisor in a banana Republic but was picked up by the
United states.
One can only conclude such a choice was driven by very specific interests of the deep
state.They needed a bulldog and got it for one year and half and threw the stinky perro soon
as the job was done.
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Posted by: 450.org | Jun 18 2020 12:30 utc | 52
The primary cause of corrupt leadership is corrupt and corruption-accepting
population.
Without a population that is fundamentally corrupt and immoral, corrupt leadership is
unstable. Conversely - and this is important to recognise as the same phenomenon - democracy
cannot exist if the population accepts and takes for granted corruption, as the two are
mutually exclusive. In other words if you root out the corrupt leadership without dealing
with the mentality of the population, the corruption will quickly come back and any
democratic experiment will collapse very quickly.
There is one important qualifier - an overwhelming external influence (since WWII always
the USA, either directly or as secondary effect) can leverage latent corruption so that it
becomes more exaggerated than it normally would be.
What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind
protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving
the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied
to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford,
Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to
current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.
Bolton pretended to be President, screwing up negotiations with his Libya Model talk,
threatening Venezuela (and anywhere generally) and directing fleets all over the world
(including Britain's to capture that Iranian oil tanker). Vindman revered "Ambassador" Bolton
because he was keeping the Ukraine corruption in Americans (and Ukrainian Americans') hands,
and daring the Russians to "start" WWIII. Bolton might have been a bit more bearable if he
had ever been elected, but was happy to see him go. Trump seemed mystified by him.
b has presented us (knowingly or not, but I wouldn't put it past him) with the Socratic
question of the presumed identity between the morality of the State and personal morality, as
best encountered in Plato's dialogue, 'The Republic' ['Politeia' in the Greek] That dialogue
begins by examining personal morality, but changes to an examination of what would bring into
being a perfect state. In doing the latter, however, it is how to create public spirited
persons, in the best sense, which is the actual concern, and the conversation ranges far and
wide, becoming more and more complex.
I've always thought that to consider the perfect state had to be an impossibility if the
individual, the person him or herself isn't up to the task - and that is the point of the
Politeia enterprise. Like the ongoing relay race on horseback that is happening at the same
time in the Piraeus, the passing of the argument one person to another that happens in the
dialogue demonstrates that what is most crucial for the state as well as for the individual
is personal integrity.
I take as an example the message of Saker's essay, linked by Down South and commented on
above by others. Saker is pointing out that the protests have been seized upon by the
anti-Trumpists who have been disrupting things from the beginning of his administration. But
he also says:
"My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his
political enemies"
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The discussion of different kinds of states,
which we often have here pursued, or the discussion of what makes a person able to function
in one or another state? I don't think Plato was saying that Greece had it made, that Greece
needed to throw its weight around more to be great. He's pointing out that it had lost
greatness, the same way every empire loses when it forgets that individual spark that is in a
single person, his virtue. And the sad thing is it all comes down to the education of our
young people in the values, the virtues that apply both to his own personal life and to the
life of the state.
At its heart, the protests which are beginning, only beginning, and which are peaceful,
may be politeia vs. republic, the 'polis' itself against 'things political'. A new and true
enlightenment, multipolar.
Corruption's been a fact of life in North America ever since it was "discovered."
Bernard Bailyn captured it quite well in his The New England Merchants in the
Seventeenth Century , that is during the very first stages of plantation, with most
corruption taking place in Old England then exported to the West. Even the Founders were
corrupt, although they didn't see themselves as such. Isn't Adam & Eve's corruption
detailed in Genesis merely an indicator of a general human trait that needs to be managed via
culture? That human culture has generally failed to contain and discipline corruption speaks
volumes about both. John Dos Passos in his opus USA noted that everyone everywhere was
on the "hustle"--from the hobo to the banker. "Every child gots to have its own" are some of
the truest lyrics ever written. Will humanity ever transcend this major failure in its
nature?
Who is behind the claim that China is imprisoning vast numbers of Uighurs in concentration
camps and what evidence has been presented? See the Greyzone for its recent report on this.
Thanks to all of you for your insights on Bolton.
I still don't see anything to explain why he got a second gig in the Whitehouse.
Or anything that he did that enhanced US security long term.
And another guy who dodged active service.
Strange angry dude,!
Pat Lang believes that Bolton has breached a law requiring US Officials with access to Top
Secret Stuff to submit personal memoirs for scrutiny before publishing. Col Lang is awaiting
similar approval for a memoir of his own and thinks Bolton didn't bother waiting for the
Official OK.
There's a diverse range of comments. Most commentators like the idea of Bolton being tossed
in the slammer. Others speculate that as a Swamp Creature, Bolton will escape prosecution.
It's interesting that no-one has asked to see the publisher's copy of the USG's signed &
dated Approval To Publish document, relevant to Bolton's book.
The Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War II,
arguing that "Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the
Munich Betrayal under the carpet. The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the
Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into
account."
Here's What You Need To Remember: Pentagon war plans already included the destruction of
cities as a way to destroy the urban and industrial backbone. "This should result in greater
population casualties in that a larger portion of the urban population may be placed at
risk."
"Bomb them back into the Stone Age," ex-Air Force general Curtis LeMay is reported to have
once urged as a way to defeat North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
But it turns out that had global nuclear war erupted during the early 1960s, it would have
been the Russians and Chinese who would have reverted to living like the Flintstones.
Related Video: Cold War Escape Tunnel Opens Under Berlin Wall
The document in question pertains to the Single Integrated Operational Plan, or SIOP, which
governs the numerous war plans and their associated options that govern how America would fight
a nuclear war. In June 1964, senior military leaders (including Air Force Chief of Staff LeMay)
were sent a staff review of the current SIOP.
The report included questions and answers regarding the various nuclear targeting options.
These ranged from attacks on enemy nuclear and conventional forces while minimizing collateral
damage to enemy cities, to attacking cities as well as military forces on purpose. This latter
option would have been "in order to destroy the will and ability of the Sino-Soviet Bloc to
wage war, remove the enemy from the category of a major industrial power, and assure a post-war
balance of power favorable to the United States."
"Should these options give more stress to population as the main target?" asked one
question.
The answer was that Pentagon war plans already included the destruction of cities as a way
to destroy the urban and industrial backbone. "This should result in greater population
casualties in that a larger portion of the urban population may be placed at risk."
In another Pentagon analysis "on the effect of placing greater emphasis on the attack of
urban/industrial targets in order to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies, it was
indicated that the achievement of a 30 per cent fatality level (i.e., 212.7 million people) in
the total population (709 million people) of China would necessitate an exorbitant weight of
effort."
This was because of China's rural society at the time. "Thus, the attack of a large number
of place names [towns] would destroy only a small fraction of the total population of China.
The rate of return for a [nuclear] weapon expended diminishes after accounting for the 30 top
priority cities."
Note that while annihilating one-third of China's population was deemed uneconomical, the
U.S. military took it for granted that the Soviet Union and China would be destroyed as viable
societies.
14 hours ago Nice. Sounds like a lose lose situation. Carry on! 8 hours ago Whats
more scary is Russia Dead Hand program. it can automatically trigger the launch of the Russian
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest-authority order
from the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Strategic Missile Force Management to command posts
and individual silos if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and
pressure sensors even with the commanding elements fully destroyed. So even if we somehow nuked
them and they didnt have time to respond, Dead Hand would do it itself. 16 hours ago This was
before scientist fully understood how the prevailing winds and the jet stream circle the globe
in the northern hemisphere. Had this nuclear war on two fronts actually happened the radiation
fallout would have circled the globe in weeks and killed most of the people living north of the
equator in a matter of months.. Think the old Gregory Peck movie "On the Beach"... And rent it
if you can, it's a great movie.. 14 hours ago If I am not mistaken, was not the same General
Curtis LeMay the running mate of George Wallace in 1968? 14 hours ago Note, all plans of the
USA are always based on assumption of invisibility. The feeling is that the country is
protected by oceans and invisible to any retaliation. My conclusion: Nuclear bomb available to
both sides saved us from MAD. It is good that both Soviet Union and China developed nuclear
response. But look, amepikan plans are made in 1964 - Soviet Union had already launched in 1957
Sputnik and as one of my educated amepikan contacts said "Russians beat a s.....t out us", that
is scared to death.
So amepikan leadership could expect that they would not invite retaliation? May be the US would
win but what would be left from the US would hardly resemble normal society. 15 hours ago By
the late 1980s, the US had so many nuclear weapons that they pretty much ran out of viable
targets. The nuke weaponeers used to talk about "making the rubble bounce" by hitting the same
targets multiple times.
BTW, the highly classified "SIOP" was in effect until 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan
13 hours ago This doctrine imo still exist. An obama aide leaked the same thing. If we go to a
nuclear war with either china or russia we will nuke both because we cant afford to have one
survive if we get destroyed. So, we can assume a nuke war with China or russia will send both
their nukes our way. 13 hours ago This kind of hyperbole article is not productive. National
war strategy should be secret. Freedom of press should have its limit. 9 hours ago I have a
suggestion, Pentagon. In the future, if you have an Endgame scenario & response, DON'T
PUBLISH IT ON YAHOO!
I think you are onto something there. When Putin unveiled the new weapons systems,
Peresvet I took to be a laser and it seemed a bit out of place as lasers are limited by
atmospheric conditions whereas Russian military equipment operates under all conditions.
Putin also spoke of completely new physics principles.
Furthermore, a large part of the bodies in the graves were those of children. The Soviets
did not execute children. This is compelling evidence that it was the work of the Germans
and not of the Soviets. Such a conclusion is confirmed by recent research by other
Ukrainian scholars. Based on the evidence from the trials of German war criminals,
testimonies of Jewish survivors, and investigations by Polish historians Ivan Katchanovski
and Volodymyr Musychenko into mass executions of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists, they
concluded that the buried bodies correspond mainly to Jews, but also Poles and "Soviet
activists". Katchanovski concludes that the Ukrainian authorities sought to blame the
Soviet NKVD in order to hide the guilt of some Ukrainian nationalists considered heroes in
present-day Ukraine, including Volodimir-Volynski itself.
There were no real documents which could anytime prove the NKVD, or any Soviet official or
citizen fighting in the Red Army for that matter, executed the people whose corpses were
found in Katyn.
Amongst the multiple contradictions and contradictory evidence found by several
researchers´groups, there is the fact that the corpses were placed in the pit in the
known nazi preferred way so called "sardine cans", plus that fact that children were also
found in the pit, when the Soviets never executed a child.
The fake documents, known in Furr´s investigation as "Closed Package No. 1″,
where "closed" refers to the highest level of confidentiality, were provided by Yeltsyn, amid
his permanent intoxication, who claimed to have found secret folders in the files of the
presidency, and directly blamed Stalin for the massacre. The folders were shown to contain
false, undated, contradictory, visibly fabricated documents. The Prosecutor General of the
Russian Federation in 2004 closed the investigation. He found no evidence to blame the USSR,
Stalin, or even the "sinister" head of the NKVD, Lavrenti Beria.
That Gorbachov, Yeltsyn, or some people currently in the Russian Duma agree with the
doctored report by the Yale University to underpine the narrative against Stalin, the USSR
and communism in general is not to be surprised since to this very day there are enemies of
Russia holding a deputy post in the Russian Duma, and we all know how generously the Western
powers behind the destruction of the USSR paid all these anti-Soviet, anti-Russian,
agents.
The thing is that the "Katyn Hoax" contitutes, along the "Holodomor Hoax", the cornerstone
of the Polish and Ukrainian far-right´s and Russian fifth column´s ( far-right
too )narrative to throw shit over Stalin´s and the heroic Sovier peoples´ victory
in WWII. Both hoaxes currently debunked by serious researchers.
A certain explanation for this unfortunate Polish whim, you will find it at the address
below. You should know that the route of the Czech-Polish border, although it originated from
the Spa Conference of 1920, was clarified according to the wishes of the French consortium
Schneider, which had taken control of the Czech industry after World War I. It is the French
historian Annie Lacroix-Riz who specifies it in "The choice of the defeat".
"There was a very tense climate in 1918–1920, a time of decision. It was decided
that a plebiscite would be held in Cieszyn Silesia asking people which country the territory
should join. Plebiscite commissioners arrived at the end of January 1920 and after analyzing
the situation declared a state of emergency in the territory on 19 May 1920. The situation in
the territory remained very tense. Mutual intimidation, acts of terror, beatings, and even
killings affected the area.[17] A plebiscite could not be held in this atmosphere. On 10 July
both sides renounced the idea of a plebiscite and entrusted the Conference of Ambassadors
with the decision.[18] Eventually 58.1% of the area of Cieszyn Silesia and 67.9% of the
population was incorporated into Czechoslovakia on 28 July 1920 by a decision of the Spa
Conference.[18] This division was in practice what gave birth to the concept of the Zaolzie
-- which literally means "the land beyond the Olza River" (looking from Poland)."
@ Posted by: Dave the Wade | Jun 21 2020 16:03 utc | 83
At the beginning/before the war, the Trotskyists made a resolution declaring that the
USSR, albeit "degenerated", was still a proletarian republic. Hence, vis-a-vis the Third
Reich, it should be defended. The document was released publicly, and it is available on the
internet; I don't remember the exact year and the name of the document. It's important to
highlight that the Nazi build up was evident already even before Hitler took power in
1932.
When it became clear the USSR would win the war, they "pushed" for the Soviets to liberate
the whole European peninsula, not just until Germany.
@ Posted by: Vince | Jun 21 2020 15:58 utc | 82
The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact had a secret protocol that envisaged the partition of Poland.
But that's immaterial as to "who's to blame for the start of the WWII" because Poland had
imperial ambitions at the time, therefore it was "a player in the game". If you "play the
game", you're putting yourself in a position to lose said game.
The reason the USSR saw Eastern Poland, Finland and the Baltics as part of its "natural
borders" is very simple: those were the borders of the old Russian Empire. The USSR was
smaller in territorial terms than the Russian Empire.
Everybody was building up before 1941 (even the USA). WWII wasn't a bolt from the blue.
The only doubt at the eve of 1939 was how each side would take shape, as it wasn't obvious
the Western colonial powers would ally with the USSR.
The allies were actually divided in half: the USSR on one side, the UK-France-USA on the
other side. The Western allies still expected the USSR would destroy itself alongside the
Third Reich so they could simply march forwards over the wasteland and occupy the whole
thing. Until Stalingrad, Roosevelt explicitly conditioned the existence of the Lend Lease to
the non-existence of a second front against Germany. It was only when it became clear the
Soviets would achieve a total victory over Germany that the Americans sobered up and lifted
this condition (i.e. they would keep the Lend Lease and they would get their second front).
That's why D-Day happened in 1944, and not in, say, 1942.
"... It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary celebrations of the end of WWII in Moscow. ..."
"... The US began arming Afghan warlords and mujaheddin as early as August 1979, as part of the then US State Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to push the USSR into an Afghan version of the Vietnam War. The plan passed muster with the Carter government. The funding and arming of the mujaheddin by the CIA was what led Kabul to request help from Moscow. The Soviets arrived in December 1979. ..."
"... The Russians suffered and endured horrific sacrifices during WWII while simultaneously turning the tide against the Third Reich. An heroic tale much unappreciated by many in the West. The Russians did participate in the Lend-Lease program although the benefits are debated especially for the early and decisive years. ..."
For the events of the 1930s, I recommend reading Micheal Jabara Carley's The Alliance
that Never Was and the Coming of World War II.
This book is essential to understand the intricate politics that ultimately triggered
WWII because it focus on the people that really had the power to stop it: the Nation-States
themselves (through their diplomats).
The politics of the 1930s were very complex, but can be based on one main
contradiction: during the 1930s, there was the widespread belief in France and the UK that
a new world war would result in a worldwide communist revolution. The equation was
war=communism in Europe, according to the conservative governments of those two
nations.
Another important reason WWII happened the way it happened was very simple, but is
denied by the Western nations until modern times: fascism was very popular in Western
Europe and the USA during the 1930s. In France in particular, the local MSM was waging a
vicious propaganda war against the USSR, and we could guess the country was essentially
polarized. The British MSM was also waging it in their home country.
Poland was 100% against the USSR. Their preference would be to preserve their
alliance with the UK-France, but they (i.e. their chief of staff of the Armed Forces) also
explicitly stated to Litvinov that, if it came to choose between Germany and the USSR, they
would choose Germany. It was because of Poland that the USSR wasn't able to fly around
Germany in order to form an alliance with the West (Romania, however, agreed to
extraofficially allow Soviet planes to cross their airspace).
Chamberlain used Poland to officially legitimize his non-alliance with the USSR, but
we now know from his personal letters (many of them to his sister) that the real reason he
didn't do it was his fear of the equation war=communism (in Western Europe). He was
literally "taking one for the team" of capitalism and was very aware of that. His position
was unsustainable, because we now know that it never crossed Hitler's mind to not wage war
against France and the UK, even though his main goal was the USSR. The thing is the Nazis
rose to power with the promise of revenging the Army for WWI.
Churchill was a capitalist and a staunch anti-communist, and, in another universe, he
certainly would do an alliance with the Nazis to crush the USSR. The problem is that the
UK's military doctrine already was completely directed towards Germany, and the British
people already was brainwashed for decades that Germany was the UK's main enemy. You can't
call a total war against an enemy your own people doesn't want to fight against. Changing a
military doctrine of a country takes decades - it simply wasn't possible for Churchill to
shift the British people's minds from an anti-German mode to an anti-Soviet mode in such a
short time. It would only be during the Cold War that it was made possible (as they had the
time to do so), and, nowadays, we can comfortably say most of the British people is
germanophile (at least, the British left) and russophobe. Plus, Churchill could see Hitler
right into his soul, and knew he would wage war from the beginning.
The Americans were completely out of the picture in the 1930s. They were divided
among the isolationists and the interventionists. Exception to the rule were the American
industrialists, who helped mainly Nazi Germany, but also the USSR, in rebuilding
themselves. They did so not because of ideology, but because they were desperate for new
markets after the collapse of 1929. American loyalty was on the cheap in the 1930s.
The humanity owes a big debt to USSR for defeating Nazi Germany and saving the earth from
their unholy empire. While Angela Merkel, instead of Putin, makes the rounds and poses in
photos in the 75th anniversary D-Day in London, the history is being rewritten in front of
our eyes and we have ended up with a majority that fails to question why it took more than
two years to plan and execute the Normandy invasion. As for capitalists funding the build-up
of the Wehrmacht, the saying goes "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will
hang them."
I believe Stalin and the Central Committees decision to occupy those countries on its
periphery and absolutely crush the likely fascist resurgence was the correct decision. I
gather they recognized the oligarchic forces who financed and supported Hitler. Those same
forces are at it again today.
The foresight and analysis of those Russian thinkers was correct then and remains relevant
now.
I guess I need to again remind people that all history is revisioned --it is seen or
read about, then processed through the historian's mind-- revisioned --then written.
Even an event that's 100% written about as it genuinely occurred is revisioned in the
above manner because that's how the human mind works. Before it was discovered how to
doctor them, photographs and film were deemed to be superior recorders of events than
descriptive words because there was no revisioning to alter the content, but that
ceased to be the case 100+ years ago. In today's world, the live broadcast is the closest
thing that avoids the revisioning dilemma--that's why live streams sent via cell
phones and webcams are powerful and hated by those seeking control--they're deprived of the
opportunity to shape the narrative or manipulate the evidence.
In his essay, I expected Putin to write more about International Law and why adherence to
it is so important in the maintenance of peace. Instead, he sent a backhanded message to
those managing the Outlaw US Empire about the fate they'll face if they continue on their
path and exit the UN.
That so many people in the West believe that the US did the most to defeat Nazi Germany is
understandable due to decades of repeated Hollywood propaganda starring the likes of John
Wayne (who never actually went near anything resembling a tank or a nav asl ship) and others.
But what explains the 50% of British people who believe the British did the most to beat the
Nazis?
Is it all that constant blagging about the Battle of Britain (which incidentally was won
for Britain by pilots representing something like 25 different nationalities with the most
significant hits being made by Polish pilots) or the ceaseless propaganda about what a great
warmonger and mass murderer ... er, "hero" Winston Churchill was, in crap media like The
Daily Mail and the BBC?
It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary
celebrations of the end of WWII in Moscow.
@Posted by: Ike | Jun 20 2020 20:17 utc | 20
Indeed, it is disturbing... May be the Russians should turn to the Western people and
invite them to represent their countries?
I am currently available for traveling...I would feel most grateful of having the
opportunity, still have not visited Lenin Mausoleum.... although for being in Moscow for June
24th, I should be carried by a "Moscow Express" flight...
"At the end of his essay Putin defends the veto power of the five permanent members
of the United Nations Security Council. In his view it has prevented that another clash on
a global scale has happened since World War II ended. Putin rejects attempts to abolish
that system."
b, what is your opinion about Germany becoming a permanent member of the UNSC since it is
now, arguably, the most powerful nation in Europe?
Do you think it threatens security/stability by excluding it from the UNSC, while the UK and
France are included? (I think it does, but I'm Canadian, what do I know? :-)
If you are referring to the massacre of Polish POWs and Polish intellectuals, musicians
and artists whose bodies were found in the forests of Katyn by Nazi German soldiers, bear in
mind that Nazi Germany stood to benefit from blaming the massacre directly on the Soviets.
While Russia under President Yeltsin did accept responsibility for the Katyn massacre - after
all, the Soviets did hold the victims as prisoners and should have evacuated them - one still
has to be wary of a narrative shaped and dictated by an enemy nation who milked the
propaganda value of the massacre against the Soviets. That in itself might tell you who the
real murderers were.
The US began arming Afghan warlords and mujaheddin as early as August 1979, as part of
the then US State Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to push the USSR into an Afghan
version of the Vietnam War. The plan passed muster with the Carter government. The funding
and arming of the mujaheddin by the CIA was what led Kabul to request help from Moscow. The
Soviets arrived in December 1979.
I'm almost done reading "Life And Fate" by Vasily Grossman, translated by Robert Chandler.
The defense of Stalingrad and the eventual defeat of Field Marshal Paulus, commander of the
6th army, is instructive.
The Russians suffered and endured horrific sacrifices during WWII while simultaneously
turning the tide against the Third Reich. An heroic tale much unappreciated by many in the
West. The Russians did participate in the Lend-Lease program although the benefits are
debated especially for the early and decisive years.
Nah, sorry mate, doesn't even have that. The Soviet Union scared the Japanese
high command into surrendering after the US dropped its demand for unconditional surrender
because it was scared that the Soviet Union would invade the main islands of Japan before it
could.
I have been following the latest shit show between POTUS, DOJ & SDNY. Are Americans
really sure they are ready to go to war with China because I have to be honest. I'm not
entirely convinced you guys have your act together.
Stalin foresaw attempts to belittle the USSR's role in WWII. For example, during the Battle
of Stalingrad there was a team of cinephotographers that filmed different aspects of the
battle, from the siege to the envelopment of the beseigers.
When the battle ended a documentary was compiled, many copies were made, some of which
were shown to enthusiastic audiences in North America. I saw that film in, I believe, March
1943 when I was a 12 year old living in Toronto.
You have to know that 1942 had been a terribly demoralizing year for the Allied side.
Japan was unstoppable running over SE Asia; U-boats were sinking lots of supply ships headed
to the UK in the North Atlantic; there was the fiasco of Dieppe which hit Canadian pride
hard; Rommel and assorted British generals were playing tag back & forth across North
Africa; but the biggest disaster was unfolding across the USSR from Leningrad down to the
lower Volga. So when that documentary opened with a shot of Reichsmarschall von Paulus
trudging through knee-deep snow leading a seemingly endless column of bedraggled German
soldiers to an imprisonment camp, it was a most uplifting moment, unmatched until May
1945.
The ferocity of the Soviet counterattack was awesome: Katyusha rockets; great swarms of
troops under air cover, including women, in white camouflage on skis, heading to the
front.
I and hundreds of thousands of others who saw that film in 1943 know damn well who really
won the war and how. Putin has had enough of insults directed against Russia's record during
WWII from UKUS, but especially from Poland, and has responded forcefully.
I found most interesting his reference to still-locked archives outside of Russia dealing
with the shenanigans that led to WWI. We can only hope that historians will get to them
before the mice!
Why is it there is no mentions that Churchill tasked his Chiefs of Staff to come up with a
plan to attack the Soviet Union and start WW Three in April 1945, a month before the end of
World War Two.
The plan his Chiefs developed was called Operation Unthinkable. It called for the Great
Britain and the allies to attack the Soviet Union on July 1, 1945. This plan went
nowhere.
Then Truman came up with a plan in August 1945 called Operation Totality which called for
dropping atomic bombs on Moscow and 20 of the most important cities in the USSR. This plan
too didn't go anywhere but this marked the end of the Great Britain, America alliance with
Stalin and from this point on, in a 180 degree turn, Stalin and the Communists became the
West's mortal enemies and the Cold War was born.
Why does this development and the reasons for this 180 degree about turn not get any
mention and analysis? Why did the allies turn on a dime and go from being best of buddies
with the Marxist Communists to being worst of enemies with the West desiring to annihilate
the Soviet Union? Why?
May be Mr. Putin aimed at trying a last intend on appeasement, his own Ribbentrop-Molotov
Pact ....May be, even knowing this time it will not work either...
"The great criminal who has ordered the murder, transforms his joy for the crime committed
into currency, giving a reward worthy of a prince. Now that he has ordered the looting and
murder of the two thousand richest men in Italy, Antonio can finally be generous. For the
bloody sack containing Cicero's hands and head, pay the centurion a brilliant million
sesterces. But with it his revenge has not yet cooled, so that the stupid hatred of this
bloodthirsty man still creates a special ignominy for the dead, without realizing that with
himself he will be debased for all time. Antonio orders that the head and the hands are
nailed in the tribune from where Cicero incited the city against him to defend the freedom
of Rome.
The next day a disgraceful spectacle awaits the Roman people. In the speakers' gallery,
the same from which Cicero delivered his immortal speeches, the severed head of the last
defender of liberty hangs discolored. An imposing rusty nail pierces the forehead, the
thousands of thoughts. Livid and with a rictus of bitterness, the lips that formulated the
metallic words of the Latin language more beautifully than those of any other. Closed, the
blue eyelids cover the eyes that for sixty years watched over the republic. Powerless, they
open his hands that wrote the most splendid letters of the time.
But all in all, no accusation made by the great orator from that rostrum against
brutality, against the delirium of power, against illegality, speaks as eloquently against
the eternal injustice of violence as that silent head of a murdered man .
Suspicious the people gather around the desecrated rostra . Dejected, ashamed, it
turns away again. No one dares - it is a dictatorship! - to express a single reply, but a
spasm oppresses their hearts. And dismayed, they lower their heads at this allegory of the
crucified republic...."
Thanks, „b" for this article and the links - I read Putin´s essay and am
impressed with the depth , insight, humanity in his words. I would like to share my views,
gained from living for many years under soviets and their Jewish helpers (like Jakub Berman,
Zambrowski, Fejgin, to name a few). Here my amplifications and few other important details,
omitted by Putin:
1). regarding his description of decisions by different governments - he does not mention
that the Polish government had good reasons not to trust Stalin - because Soviet Union
cooperated with Germany for many years before - in form of having Germans (disguised as some
kind of para military, in order to circumvent the prohibitions following Versailles treaty)
training in the Soviet Union.
2). Another detail is that the British, French and Americans were trying to gain time
before confrontation with Nazis, just the same reasoning Putin allows to Soviet Union.
3).It also can be interpreted that Stalin decided to join the partition of Poland only
after Germany was victorious, similar tactic Stalin used in starting war against Japan after
USA won the war in Pacific and occupied the Kurile Islands.
4). Putin is disguising the aggressive action of USSR vis-a-vis Baltic states by saying
„In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals,
started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia." If Hitler would have
stopped at that and not march on Moscow like Napoleon - this action would have mutate into
pure aggression. „incorporation" - my foot!
5). Putin does not mention any Polish names along Petain, Quisling, Vlasov and Bandera --
because there were none, and this is significant, showing that not a single Pole was found to
work - in a quasi government - with Nazis.
6). The spirit of independence he claims for Russian people (earlier in the essay), he is
not giving the People of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland.
7). Putin mentions „burnt Khatyn" in one breath with Babi Yar - I wonder, is there a
different Kathyn from „the" Katyn, where over 22 Tsd. Polish officers and officials
were butchered on orders of Stalin, Beria, Kaganovich (and one or two more whose names escape
me now).
8). Putin is knowingly or otherwise pushing the antisemitic mantra on Polish nation -
mentioning the ´splendid monument´ for Hitler to be erected in Warsaw, quoting
ambassador Lipski in 1938 this is a blow below the waist line and I did not expect it to be
repeated in this essay, as he used it already on a previous occasion. It is in jarring
contrast with the otherwise solid and even-handed exposition.
In my humble opinion Putin´s essay is a big wink to Poland to stay away from Ukraine
and Belarus and not be a stooge of others (oligarchs, as uncle tungsten says in #27) to try
undermine Russia!
The insinuations about polish antisemitism (as if Poles had monopoly in this subject!!!)
is in line with the possible use of Jewish „forces" in dealing with Polish nationalism,
and unpredictability of events in Eastern Europe, if the color revolutions continue, say in
Belarus..
The possible role of Israeli political calculus should also be kept in mind, as their
´plan B´, when Islam will get too dangerous for many Jews and who will suddenly
discover love to the land of their polish antisemites That is why Poland is mentioned that
many times.
Putin and the Russian Duma have previously accepted that the Katyn massacre occurred under
orders of Stalin and Beria. It's not Western of Polish propaganda.
While I understand that a lot has changed in the last 10 years with regards to the level
of anti-Russia hysteria, and I also understand that this essay is meant to bring forward the
Russian point of view on WW2 as opposed to the propaganda of the West, I stand by my earlier
statement that glossing over the bad things that happened under the orders of Stalin and
simply giving a generic "Stalin was a bad man" statement only leaves an otherwise excellent
historical essay open to be dismissed as propaganda.
There was a deal between US and Stalin that the Red Army would attack Japan 3 months after
the end of the war in Europe, which actually happened on time - the Manchurian campaign which
utterly destroyed the Japanese army in N. China/Manchukuo/Korea began on the 9th of August.
Japan wasn't prepared for this and still assumed the non-aggression agreement with USSR that
had been made in 1939 was still valid.
This wasn't Stalin trying to take advantage, the US were so far from invading the Main
Islands that everyone assumed the war would last another year. This was Stalin doing exactly
what Roosevelt had begged him to do at Yalta. And opening a 2nd front against Japan worked
far better than expected - and far better than when the Western Allies opened a 2nd front in
Europe against the Reich.
Historians, political scientists, Western "experts" and anti-communist "liberals" in Russia
have always attributed the Katyn massacre to the NKVD, the secret police of the Soviet
Union, providing alleged evidence and documents that would prove such authorship. However,
all indications suggest that the Katyn massacre is another historical falsification similar
to the Ukrainian Holodomor or to the figures given on the "millions of deaths" of Soviet
communism. The responsibility for what happened in Katyn, in light of the evidence and
testimonies provided, was the work of the Nazis.
80 years after the events of Katyn (supposedly happened in April 1940) near the city of
Smolensk (border with Belarus), where more than 20 thousand Polish soldiers were executed
in a nearby forest, the propaganda of the cold war returns with force, and the renewed
counterfeits of the West against Russia and the former USSR.
Definitely, there is not a single consistent proof of Soviet authorship in the Katyn
massacre.
Interestingly, on June 18, 2012, the European Communities Court of Justice for Human
Rights, following a claim by Polish relatives of the soldiers executed in Katyn, made a
surprising decision: the "documents" provided by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, after the fall of
the USSR (which we will talk about in the second part of this entry), indicating that
Stalin and the Soviets were guilty of the execution of tens of thousands of Polish officers
near Katyn, were false. A historical slap to the propagandists of the "Russian Katyn".
The alleged documents on the mass execution of Katyn, which appeared in the late 1980s,
were gutted by one of the members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Alexander
Yakovlev (a more than likely US agent who trained in North American Columbia University in
the late 1950s), turned out to be false. The European court did not even accept them for
consideration.
The European Court was also unable to clearly decide who was responsible for the
massacre since the judges did not have enough documentary evidence, although they spent
more than a year studying all kinds of historical documents and archival evidence. Until
around 1990, everyone was convinced that the Poles had been killed by the Germans. This
decision of the EECC Court of Justice has been completely ignored by the propagandists of
the Katyn myth.(...)
In the early 19th century, fueling the illusory hope of restoring Greater Poland, the
Poles sided with Napoleon in the war of 1812. The Polish army, created with the help of the
French, became part of the "Great Army "Of Bonaparte as the most reliable foreign
contingent. This was the third Polish invasion of Russia.
The Polish uprising of 1830 began with the widespread extermination of the Russians. In
all the churches they called for the indiscriminate murder of the Russians. In Warsaw, on
Easter night, an entire battalion of the Russian army was taken by surprise in a church.
2,265 Russian soldiers and officers died.
The Polish state, born in November 1918, immediately showed its hostility towards Soviet
Russia. With the help of the Entente, Poland begins preparations for a war against Russia.
Polish politicians had the possibility that a forceful blow from the Polish army would be
dealt to the Russian army.
Poland accompanied its aggressive intentions with a set of propaganda stereotypes about
the aggressiveness of the Bolsheviks. Numerous proposals from the young Soviet state to
conclude a peace treaty and establish diplomatic relations were rejected. Polish military
operations against Russia in the spring of 1920 were undertaken by Poland, not Soviet
Russia.
After tripling numerical superiority, Polish troops, along with the army of the
Ukrainian nationalist military man Simon Petliura, launched a full-scale offensive along
the entire Western Front from Pripyat to Dniester. This was the fourth Polish invasion of
Russian lands. In early May 1920, Polish and Petliura fighters captured Kiev. The invasion
of the allied forces of Poland and Petlyura was accompanied by brutal and inhuman
retaliation against the civilian civilian population.
In the occupied regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, Polish invaders established
bloody local governments, insulted and robbed civilians, or burned innocent people.
Orthodox churches became Polish Christian churches, national schools closed.(...)
The total number of prisoners of war who died in those concentration camps is not known
with certainty. However, there are various estimates based on the number of Soviet
prisoners of war who returned from Polish captivity - there were 75,699 people. Russian
historian Mikhail Meltiukhov estimates the number of prisoners killed at 60,000 people.
Mortality among prisoners of war reached 50 people per day and as of mid-November 1920 it
was 70 people per day. In the Tukholsky concentration camp alone, during the entire time of
its existence, 22 thousand Red Army prisoners of war died.
In other words, the Poles established in their concentration camps a systematic policy
of extermination with the Russians that reached the character of genocide, something that
has been systematically silenced or hidden by the West in favor of Polish propaganda. For
these crimes, the Poles today neither feel guilty nor have any remorse and disparagingly
call it "Russian propaganda".
In the period between the two world wars, Poland repeatedly threatened to destroy
Bolshevism and Russia as a state. Instead, as General Vladyslaw Anders, an active
participant in Pan-Poland's intervention against Soviet Russia in 1919-1920, admitted,
"There was never a real threat from the USSR to Poland."
Poland was never reluctant to attack Russia to hold, alongside Nazi Germany and Japan, a
parade of victorious Polish-German troops on Moscow's Red Square. Marshal and national hero
of Poland, the dictator Jozéf Pilsudsky, responsible for the mass extermination of
Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Jews, dreamed of coming to Moscow and writing "It is
forbidden to speak Russian on the Kremlin wall!"
In January 1934, Poland was the first, five years before the USSR, to conclude a
non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. In late 1936, the Anti-Komintern Pact was concluded
with the signing of Germany and Japan, which were later joined by Italy, Spain, Romania,
Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and the Republic of China (a state
puppet formed by the Japanese empire in occupied territory).
The Poles, at that time, flatly refused to sign any agreement with the USSR, a country
that despite having been throughout the history of countless Polish aggressions reached out
to Poland. As early as mid-August 1939, the Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck, in
whose office there was a portrait of Hitler, declared that "we have no military agreement
with the USSR, nor do we want to have one."
In developing the plan of attack against Poland in early 1939, Hitler did not take into
account the overtly anti-Soviet policies of the Polish government before the war. He and
his entire circle despised and hated the Poles as a nation (even though they had been his
allies in the 1930s), which was natural since his supremacist ideology did not take into
account other nations than the German one.
In August 1939, before the attack on Poland, Hitler ordered that all Polish women, men,
and children be ruthlessly exterminated. During the years of occupation, the Nazis murdered
more than 6 million Poles, representing 22 percent of the Polish population. 95% of
genetically defective Poles were planned to be evicted from their homeland.
Soviet troops, by contrast, did not allow the Nazis to wipe Poland off the face of the
earth. No other force in the world could do this. "Poles must be very stupid, Winston
Churchill wrote in January 1944, if they don't understand who saved them and who for the
second time in the first half of the 20th century gives them the possibility of true
freedom and independence." These surprising statements by Churchill, a confessed
anti-communist, had nothing to do with the Cold War preparations that the British premier
against the USSR and the socialist countries subsequently devised and that was reflected in
his famous speech by Fulton (USA).
More than 600,000 Soviet soldiers gave their lives, saving the cities and towns of
Poland in battles with the Nazis. On the contrary, during the three weeks of the
Polish-German war of 1939, there were attacks by Polish troops against units of the Red
Army. As a consequence of these attacks, the Soviet army lost more than a thousand of its
men.
The Polish troops, who were in the midst of the Second World War in the territory of the
Soviet Union, refused to fight together with the Red Army against which it should be a
common Nazi enemy and left for Iran in the summer of 1942 While in the USSR, Polish troops
engaged in robbery in cities and towns and committed atrocities in them.
During World War II, up to half a million Polish volunteers fought on the eastern front
against the USSR, as part of the Nazi Wehrmacht (the regular army). In fact, the Germans
did not carry out a forced mobilization of Polish fighters to fight alongside Nazi Germany.
In the SS, the Poles acted voluntarily and in the Wehrmacht, they posed as "Germans" or
"semi-Germans".
During the four years of the war, the Red Army captured 4 million Wehrmacht soldiers and
volunteers from 24 European nationalities. The Poles on that list were in seventh place
(over 60,000 mercenaries), ahead of the Italians (about 49,000).
It should be noted that the mortality of German refugees in Polish camps in 1945-1946.
reached 50%. In the Potulice camp in 1947-1949 half of the prisoners died of starvation,
cold and harassment by the Polish guards. At the end of the war, four million Germans lived
in Poland. According to estimates by the Union of German Exiles, the loss of the German
population during the expulsion from Poland amounted to some 3 million people.
After the unmitigated defeat of the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad, it became clear that if
nothing extraordinary happened in favor of the Hitler regime, nothing would change the
course of events and the Third Reich would eventually implode in the very near future.
So the Nazis "discovered" in 1943, in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, a mass grave with
Polish officers. The Germans immediately declared that, as a result of the opening of the
graves, all those buried there had been executed by members of the Soviet Union's secret
police, the NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs), in the spring of 1940. .
The official statement on the Katyn massacre was made by the Nazi government and
released by its Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, on April 13, 1943, in a statement
speaking about the "terrible discovery of the crimes of the Jewish commissioners of the
NKVD "in the Katyn Forest. With this propaganda device, Nazi Germany sought to divide the
anti-Hitler coalition and win the war.
The significance of such a declaration by the Goebbels Department had a cunning
undercurrent: the Polish government-in-exile would strongly oppose Moscow and thereby
pressure the British who sheltered them in London to stop supporting the Kremlin. According
to Berlin's calculations, the Poles would push the British and Americans to fight Stalin,
which could imply a completely different development from the events in World War II.
But Goebbels' calculation was not justified: Britain at the time did not consider it
profitable to believe in the "crime of the Bolsheviks". At the same time, the head of
London's "Polish government", General Wladyslaw Sikorski, took a relentless position and
began to truly become an obstacle to the great international policy of alliances between
the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.
The Vladislav Sikorsky government in London supported Goebbels's version and began to
distribute it diligently, hoping that this would help regain power in Warsaw and spark a
war between the USSR and its anti-Hitler coalition allies. Sikorsky supported the Germans'
proposal to send to the Katyn region an "International Medical Commission" created by them
under the auspices of the International Red Cross (IRC) with doctors selected by Germany,
as well as experts from 13 allied countries and the German-occupied countries.
When his CRI commission reached Katyn, Goebbels demanded that his subordinates prepare
everything, including a medical report tailored to the Nazis. Under pressure from the Nazis
and so that events such as the terrible fate of Polish officers would not be repeated in
the future, the agreement was signed by the majority of the members of the international
commission.
Members of the commission, such as the doctor from the Department of Forensic Medicine
at Sofia University, Marko Markov, and the Czech professor of forensic medicine, Frantisek
Gajek, did not support Goebbels's version. The representatives of Vichy, France, Professor
Castedo, and Spain, Professor Antonio Piga and Pascual, did not put their signature on the
final document. After the war, all members of the international commission of forensic
experts abandoned their conclusions in the spring of 1943.
The Polish Red Cross Technical Commission, which worked in Katyn in specially "prepared"
places and under the control of the Germans, was unable to reach unequivocal conclusions
about the causes of death of the Polish officers, although they discovered German
cartridges used in the shooting of victims in the Katyn forest. Joseph Goebbels demanded to
keep this a secret so that the Katyn case would not collapse.
A few weeks later, on July 4, 1943, General Sikorsky, his daughter Zofya, and the head
of his cabinet, Brigadier General Tadeusz Klimecki, were killed in a plane crash near
Gibraltar. Only the Czech pilot, Eduard Prchal, survived, who was unable to clearly explain
why he put on a life jacket during this flight, when he generally did not.
The position of the "Western Allies" of the USSR in World War II on the Katyn issue
began to change along with the deterioration of relations between Washington-London and
Moscow, once the "cold war" began by the United States and its allies. The accusations
against the USSR were continued by the American Madden commission in 1951-1952.
Again, Victor@43, you make your point well, but perhaps we need to pay attention to what
karlof1 is saying at the end of his post at 29:
"Instead, he sent a backhanded message to those managing the Outlaw US Empire about
the fate they'll face if they continue on their path and exit the UN."
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this (perhaps Karlof will elucidate when he has
time) but I do note that the essay has a slightly different focus than b's first link as its
title begins "The Real Lessons..."
So, what, we may ask, are those real lessons? Apparently the instances of Stalin's bad
behavior are not such, or are not what we need to learn.
And further, what is the importance of the final paragraphs of the essay, which call for
the Security Council leaders,(having agreed to do so) representing the nations which were
allied successfully during WWII, to meet as soon as possible? Putin has given in his essay
the example of the League of Nations, the failure of that body to prevent the second great
war. I saw his final statement more as an urgent call for unity in present crisis than as a
threat, but then I'm always a polyanna.
Putin glosses over Stalins aggressions against Finland and his annexations of Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, northern Bukovina and the Hertza
region), the latter in violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact , are overlooked
He justifies Russia taking back land in Poland because he claimed that was theirs was but
Hitler doing the same was not , and justified as a defensive measure against Germany while
ignoring Poland was a threat to Germany , as they sought alliance with UK/US
Stalin had a very large and well equipped military and was resource rich unlike
Germany.
Stalin began his buildup long before the war, perhaps anticipating Germanys military
expansion, or perhaps he had designs on Europe himself. Remember one of FDR's first moves as
President was recognizing Stalin and providing loans for trade in 1933
From Icebreaker (Suvorov)
In the early 1930s, American engineers traveled to the Soviet Union and built the
Uralvagonzavod (the Ural Railroad Car Factory). Uralvagonzavod was built in such a manner
that it could at any moment switch from producing railroad cars to producing tanks.
The most powerful aviation factory in the world was built in the Russian Far East. The
city Komsomolsk-na-Amure was built in order to service this factory. Both the factory and the
city were built according to American designs and furnished with the most modern American
equipment.
Western technology was the main key to success. The Soviet Union became the world's
biggest importer of machinery and equipment in the early 1930s, at a time when millions were
starving due to his bloody war against peasants, which was called collectivization. The
Soviet collectivization of 1932-1933 is estimated to have resulted in 3.5 to 5 million deaths
from starvation, and another three to 4 million deaths as a result of intolerable conditions
at the places of exile.
Cargo warplanes are used to deliver assault forces with parachutists to the enemy's rear.
Soviet war-transport aviation used the American Douglas DC-3, which was considered to be the
best cargo plane in the world at the start of World War II, as its primary cargo plane. In
1938, the U.S. government sold to Stalin the production license and the necessary amount of
the most complex equipment for the DC-3's production. The Soviet Union also bought 20 DC-3s
from the United States before the war.
In 1939, the Soviet Union produced six identical DC-3 aircraft; in 1940, it produced 51
DC-3 aircraft; and in 1941, it produced 237 DC-3 aircraft. During the entire war 2,419 DC-3s
or equivalent planes were produced in Soviet factories.
In the years 1937-1941, the Soviet Army grew five-fold, from 1.1 million to 5.5 million.
An additional 5.3 million people joined the ranks of the Red Army within one week of the
beginning of the war. A minimum of 34.5 million people were used by the Red Army during the
war. This huge increase in the size of the Soviet Army was accomplished primarily by
ratification of the universal military draft in the Soviet Union on Sept. 1, 1939.
According to the new law, the draft age was reduced from 21 to 19, and in some categories
to 18. This new law also allowed for the preparation of 18 million reservists, so that the
Soviet Union continued to fill the ranks of the Red Army with many millions of soldiers as
the war progressed.
The 9th Army appeared on the Romanian border on June 14, 1941, in the exact place where a
year ago it had "liberated" Bessarabia. If the Soviet 9th Army had been allowed to attack
Romania, Germany's main source of oil would have been lost and Germany would have been
defeated. Hitler's attack of the Soviet Union prevented this from happening. The
concentration of Soviet troops on Romanian borders presented a clear danger to Germany, and
was a major reason for the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
Looking for blame one must not forget to look home. US finance and industrialists built up
the Stalin and Hitler both with money, tech transfers, cartel agreements.
FDR pushed both the British and Poland into decisions which would lead to War.
When Germany tried to negotiate for Free Danzig , which was mostly German , Poland
succumbed to US and British pressure/promises of aid, so they took a hardline and took
measures to assume control over Free Danzig from the League of Nations. As a result Poles
began to persecute ethnic Germans of which there were many , forcing some to flee Poland into
Germany while those who wanted to protect their property stayed and faced the violence.
Everyone in the West knows about the D-Day landings in Normandy on 6 June 1944.
150,000 men on the first day, building up to 2 million men during the peak of Operation
Overlord.
Nobody in the West knows about Operation Bagration in the Eastern front, launched two
weeks after the D-Day landings.
Vastly bigger in every way, and it ended in the complete annihilation of Army Group Centre
and the severe mauling of Army Group North and Army Group South.
Operation Bagration was much more important to the defeat of Germany than Operation
Overlord.
Indeed, the Red Army would have succeeded even if the Normandy landings had not taken
place, whereas it is very, very unlikely that Operation Overlord would have succeeded if it
were not for the Germans being hamstrung by the carnage that was taking place in the
East.
Putin's own words in the center article of B: Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve
many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own
people and the horror of mass repressions. Lets keep that in mind and praise the USSR for
defeating the Nazi regime, never Stalin.
As for Churchill; he was a typical upper class imperialist most of his life but did
save GB in the critical early years of the Battle for Britain with his moral boosters.
Hitler showed how powerful a force nationalism can be to unite a people but simultaneously
demonstrated that by focusing on a country's Ego and not its Soul how wrong it can end up.
His "National Sozialismus" fouled both notions in the West and lead many to embrace globalism
and uncontrolled capitalism, of which we see the results today. He had Germany under his
black magic speeches for just one decade, but these after effects had Europe twisted for
many.
Putin holds on to the existing choice of the 5 permanent UNSC veto holders, probably not to
complicate matters now. The PRC was added in 1972 and the ROC (Taiwan) removed.
There is a lot of cherry picking of history going on when it comes to who did what to whom
in the lead up to WW2. All countries are a lot less innocent than they claim to be.
But I'm not sure why you are posting revisionist history about Katyn since the Russians
already admitted that the Soviets were responsible for the crime.
@ victor... a lot of posters here are suspect of wikipedia, and any number of media outlets
offering up their take on russia...
unfortunately if i was to believe the independent.co.uk - i would believe all the lies and
bulshit around skripal and for the record - i don't... a better source to back up your
viewpoint is needed.. thanks..
Schmatz@45 - as Victor at 52 says, there is no need to suspect anyone else for massacre in
Katyn (and other places btw), Russians admitted it. If you wish to see the signatures, a book
by Pavel Sudoplatov "Special Tasks" (available on Amazon) has a facsimile copy of the order
signed by Beria, Stalin and 2 or 3 more - to liquidate the Polish POW´s...
"No real errors in Putin's excellent essay, but some glossing over of certain major
incidents, including the arrests, deportations and executions of thousands of Poles committed
by the Soviets when they invaded Poland, the absorption of the Baltic countries, and the war
with Finland. Unfortunately, omitting important details just gives ammunition to the many
Putin haters to claim that this is just more Russian historical revisionism and
propaganda."
I agree on the Baltic states. I think it's the one part of Putin's essay I'd take issue
with.
He should have made the strategic case for why the USSR felt compelled to take control of
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The Baltic coastline and approach to Leningrad were both very
significant. Of course it's true that Russia lost control of all three for most of the war,
but that doesn't change the strategic validity of Soviet policy in 1940.
The same thing goes for Soviet demands to control some coastal area and islands in Finland
which led to the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-40.
Instead of making a strategic case, Putin tries to whitewash the Russian takeover by
claiming "consent." That is a weak argument and the only real point of weakness I see in his
essay.
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
It turns out that the BBC really does believe that God is an Englishman. When the simple
impossibility of the official story on the Skripals finally overwhelmed the dramatists, they
resorted to Divine Intervention for an explanation – as propagandists have done for
millennia.
This particular piece of script from Episode 2 of The Salisbury Poisonings deserves an
induction in the Propaganda Hall of Fame:
Porton Down Man: I've got the reports from the Bailey house
Public Health Woman: Tell me, how many hits?
Porton Down Man: It was found in almost every room of the house. Kitchen, bathroom, living
room, bedrooms. It was even on the light switches. We found it in the family car too. But his
wife and children haven't been affected. I like to think of myself as a man of science, but
the only word for that is a miracle.
Well, it certainly would be a miracle that the family lived for a week in the house without
touching a light switch. But miracle is not really the "only word for that". Nonsense is a good
word. Bullshit is a ruder version. Lie is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.
Because that was not the only miracle on display. We were told specifically that the
Skripals had trailed novichok all over Zizzis and the Bishops Mill pub, leaving multiple deadly
deposits, dozens of them in total, which miraculously nobody had touched. We were told that
Detective Bailey was found to have left multiple deadly deposits of novichok on everything he
touched in a busy police station, but over several days before it was closed down nobody had
touched any of them, which must be an even bigger miracle than the Baileys' home.
Perhaps even more amazingly, as the Skripals spread novichok all over the restaurant and the
pub, nobody who served them had been harmed, nobody who took their payment. The man who went
through Sergei's wallet to learn his identity from his credit cards was not poisoned. The
people giving first aid were not poisoned. The ducks Sergei fed were not poisoned. The little
boy he fed the ducks with was not poisoned. So many miracles. If God were not an Englishman,
Salisbury would have been in real trouble, evidently.
The conclusion of episode two showed Charlie Rowley fishing out the perfume bottle from the
charity bin at least two months in the timeline before this really happened, thus neatly
sidestepping one of the most glaring impossibilities in the entire official story. I think we
can forgive the BBC that lie – there are only so many instances of divine intervention in
the story the public can be expected to buy in one episode.
It is fascinating to see that the construction of this edifice of lies was a joint venture
between the BBC and the security services' house journal, the Guardian. Not only is all round
pro-war propagandist "Colonel" Hamish De Bretton Gordon credited as Military Advisor, but
Guardian journalists Caroline Bannock and Steven Morris are credited as Script Consultants,
which I presume means they fed in the raw lies for the scriptwriters to shape into
miracles.
Now here is an interesting ethical point for readers of the Guardian. The Guardian published
in the last fortnight
two articles by
Morris and Bannock that purported to be reporting on the production of the drama and its
authenticity, without revealing to the readers that these full time Guardian journalists were
in fact a part of the BBC project. That is unethical and unprofessional in a number of quite
startling ways. But then it is the Guardian.
[Full disclosure. I shared a flat with Caroline at university. She was an honest person in
those days.]
Again, rather than pepper this article with links, I urge you to read
this comprehensive article , which contains plenty of links and remains entirely
unanswered.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The original source of this
article is Craig Murray
"If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or
joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be the kind of people Joe
McCarthy wants."
"The centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." -- W. B. Yeats,
1919
Truth is the first victim in politics. Factions and passions rule. Random facts are picked as
weapons, no one thinks things through.
We need to understand the facts surrounding the death of George Floyd.
Many key facts are being ignored:
Floyd's blood tests showed a concentration of Fentanyl of
about three times the fatal dose. Fentanyl is a dangerous opioid 50 times more potent than
heroin. It has rapidly become the most common cause of death among drug addicts. The knee hold
used by the police is not a choke hold, it does not impede breathing. It is a body restraint and
is not known to have ever caused fatal injury. Floyd already began to complain "I can't breathe"
a few minutes before the neck restraint was applied, while resisting the officers when they tried
to get him into the squad car. Fentanyl affects the breathing, causing death by respiratory
arrest. It was normal procedure to restrain Floyd because he was resisting arrest, probably in
conjunction with excited delirium (EXD), an episode of violent agitation brought on by a drug
overdose, typically brief and ending in death from cardiopulmonary arrest. The official autopsy
did indeed give cardiopulmonary arrest as the cause of death, and stated that injuries he
sustained during the arrest were not life-threatening. Videos of the arrest do not show police
beating or striking Floyd, only calmly restraining him In one video Floyd is heard shouting and
groaning loudly and incoherently while restrained on the ground, which appears to be a sign of
the violent, shouting phase of EXD. His ability to resist four officers trying to get him into
the squad car is typical of EXD cases. A short spurt of superhuman strength is a classic EXD
symptom.
Minneapolis police officers have been charged with Floyd's murder. Yet all the evidence points
to the fact that Floyd had taken a drug overdose so strong that his imminent death could hardly
have been prevented. In all likelihood, the police were neither an intentional nor accidental
cause of his death. These crucial facts have been completely ignored in the uproar.
When scientists review scientific papers, they look primarily at the evidence, and give less
weight to the conclusions, which are only the other fellow's opinions. To blindly follow "expert
opinions" is the Authoritarian View of Knowledge. This is no real knowledge at all, because to
assess whether an expert is always right, we would need infinite knowledge, and doubly so when
experts disagree. Not thinking for oneself is not really thinking.
So let us stick to the evidence. The county's ambivalent autopsy also included the following
hard facts: "Toxicology Findings: Blood samples collected at 9:00 p.m. on May 25th, before Floyd
died, tested positive for the following: Fentanyl 11 ng/mL, Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL ,
Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL 86 ng/mL of morphine," but draws no conclusions therefrom, noting only
that "Quantities are given for those who are medically inclined."
If ever there was a leap before a look, we are in it now. Masses of people have become
extremists, based on conclusions that are as false as they are hasty.
One difficulty is that there are public statements to the effect that the coroner ruled it a
homicide, and the title of the autopsy report includes the term "neck compression." But the words
"homicide," "restraint," "stress" or "compression" do not appear in the 20-page body of the
report. References to the neck are few -- a couple minor abrasions, a contusion on the shoulder,
and "The cervical spinal column is palpably stable and free of hemorrhage." It is as if the title
was chosen in regard to what was expected or proposed, but which was never found, and the title
was never updated. There seems to be no support at all in the report body for the report title,
which reads, "Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck
compression."
The term "cause of death" does not appear. The words "death" and "fatal" only appear in this
comment in the lab report: "Signs associated with fentanyl toxicity include severe respiratory
depression, seizures, hypotension, coma and death . In fatalities from fentanyl, blood
concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL." Floyd's fentanyl level was
seven times higher.
If first impressions via the media fooled the coroner's office, until they examined the body,
we too can be fooled at first, but change our opinion according to the evidence.
Excited Delirium Syndrome
An additional hypothesis involves Excited Delirium Syndrome (EXD), a symptom of drug overdose
which sometimes appears in the final minutes preceding death. EXD typically results from fatal
drug abuse, in past years from cocaine or crack, more recently from fentanyl, which is 50 times
more potent than heroin. Especially dangerous are street drugs like meth, heroin or cocaine laced
with fentanyl.
According to an article in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine (WJEM), 2011: [5]
https://westjem.com/articles/excited-delirium.html "Excited delirium (EXD) is characterized
by agitation, aggression, acute distress and sudden death, often in the pre-hospital care
setting. It is typically associated with the use of drugs. Subjects typically die from
cardiopulmonary arrest all accounts describe almost the exact same sequence of events: delirium
with agitation (fear, panic, shouting, violence and hyperactivity), sudden cessation of struggle,
respiratory arrest and death ."
It appears that an EXD episode began when the officers tried to get Floyd into the squad car.
He resisted, citing "claustrophobia" -- the onset of the fear and panic phase, and "I can't
breathe" -- difficulty breathing due to fentanyl locking into the breathing receptors in the
brain. (Classic symptoms of EXD are highlighted in bold.) He then exhibited unexpected strength
from the adrenaline spike in successfully resisting the efforts of four officers to get him into
the car. We may never know whether Floyd's agitation was caused purely from the EXD adrenaline
spike, or if it was aggravated by police attempts to subdue him -- but a subject defying the
efforts of multiple officers to subdue him is a very common theme.
When Chauvin pulled him out of the car he fell to the ground, perhaps due to disorientation
and reduced coordination. Presumably this was when he injured his mouth and his nose started to
bleed, and the police made the first call for paramedics.
While restrained on the ground, Floyd exhibited agitation ( shouting and hyperactivity, trying
to move back and forth) for several minutes. There is one brief video at this point. One hears
Floyd shouting very loudly, as in the agitated delirium phase -- it sounds like, "My face is
stoned ah hah, ah haaa, ah please people, please, please let me stand, please, ah hah, ah haaa!"
[6]
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-video-appea...17476/ . In a few minutes this was
followed by " sudden cessation of struggle, respiratory arrest and death, " shown in a later
video, where he becomes exhausted, and had stopped breathing when the ambulance arrived.
[7]
https://www.facebook.com/darnellareallprettymarie/vi...61280/
It appears that disorientation had already set in when the store employees went to Floyd's car
and asked him to return the cigarettes he had bought for a fake $20 bill. He refused, and they
reported the incident to the police, saying that he appeared to be very intoxicated. He certainly
must have been, or he would have either returned the cigarettes or left quickly to avoid arrest.
Loss of judgment is a symptom of the syndrome; this includes futile efforts to resist arrest.
Police Intervention and Intentions
The EXD diagnosis is controversial and in some quarters is viewed as an alibi for police
brutality. The WJEM authors note, "Since the victims frequently die while being restrained or in
the custody of law enforcement, there has been speculation over the years of police brutality
being the underlying cause. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of deaths
occur suddenly prior to capture, in the emergency department (ED), or unwitnessed at home."
Regarding restraint, they note, "people experiencing EXD are highly agitated, violent, and
show signs of unexpected strength, so it is not surprising that most require physical restraint.
The prone maximal restraint position (PMRP, also known as "hobble" or "hogtie"), where the
person's ankles and wrists are bound together behind their back, has been used extensively by
field personnel. In far fewer cases, persons have been tied to a hospital gurney or manually held
prone with knee pressure on the back or neck."
This latter position is what the accused officer Chauvin was applying, although at one point
the team did consider using a hobble. Physical restraint of the subject has always been the
classical procedure, to prevent the subject harming themselves or others. It has been proposed
that restraint helps to forestall injury and death by conserving the subject's energy, but most
experts believe that by leading to an intense struggle, it increases the likelihood of a fatal
outcome.
Since knowingly using counterfeit currency is a fairly serious offense, the Minneapolis
officers were required to arrest Floyd and try to bring him in. When he violently resisted, the
optimal choice could have been to let him sit against a wall and guard him while calling an
ambulance. To be able to quickly switch from law enforcement mode to emergency care mode requires
training in recognizing the symptoms.
The charge sheet against Chauvin included this exchange between the two white officers on the
squad: [8]
https://www.startribune.com/protests-build-anew-afte...869672 ""I am worried about excited
delirium or whatever," Lane said. "That's why we have him on his stomach," Chauvin said."
According to this dialogue, Chauvin was apparently was trying to follow the protocol
recommended by WJEM. Since Floyd was on his stomach, Chauvin's knee pinned him at the side of his
neck, and did not impede breathing. Commentators are referring to Chauvin "kneeling" on Floyd's
neck, or resting his weight on it. From videos it is hard to gauge how much weight he applied,
but the correct procedure is just enough to restrain movement, not to crush the person.
Chauvin and his team might not have done everything perfectly, but it is easy to underestimate
the difficulty of police work, particularly in cases of resisting arrest, whether willfully or
due to intoxication. If they had been clairvoyant clinicians, they would have called an ambulance
the moment they saw him. Better training is needed. Was the police department then responsible?
Might the department have given the needed training if the AMA had acknowledged the existence of
the syndrome? This brings up a paradox: could police critics who deny the syndrome then bear part
of the responsibility for the deaths they decry? The syndrome is being recognized by law
enforcement after the fact. It needs to be recognized as it is happening.
With a fatal overdose there is no good outcome possible, but there is no way for police to
foresee that. Sometimes EXD can last longer, and it is not always fatal. Perhaps the ACEP Task
Force on EXD will update their report and provide guidelines to help police identify and deal
with EXD while avoiding accusations of police brutality.
In one video [10]
https://www.facebook.com/darnellareallprettymarie/vi...61280/ Chauvin continued to apply the
neck restraint although bystanders repeatedly objected, and even after Floyd stopped moving. As
Floyd became exhausted, it could have been reasonable to relax the restraint to see if it was
really necessary. Chauvin didn't seem to respond to the bystanders to give a medical reason for
the restraint. His actions were consistent with a belief that police should restrain the subject
until medevacs arrive. Videos show the police focused on restraint, never beating or striking
Floyd. The restraint and verbal exchanges with Floyd are also consistent with a belief that he
was resisting arrest, by refusing to get in the squad car. When he said "I can't breathe," they
responded "You're talking fine." When they said "Get in the car," he didn't agree to.
EXD seems to be the most likely reason why Floyd suddenly refused to get into the squad car,
and began to shout and writhe on the ground. With or without EXD or police intervention, he was
going to die quickly from fentanyl, short of immediate intensive care. A common treatment for EXD
is sedation with drugs like ketamine. The usual antidote for fentanyl is naloxone. Higher levels
of fentanyl may require intravenous naloxone for 24 hours or more.
He also fell down twice, which could be seen either as a sign of intoxication or resisting
arrest. The officers knew it was a drug overdose, as Thao told bystanders, "This is why you don't
do drugs, kids." By the way, this Wikipedia article should be named "Death of George Floyd," as
an accused is innocent until proven guilty. and then completely stopped breathing, this was the
onset of respiratory arrest, which is how a fentanyl overdose kills.
While police work is needed to trace the source of these dangerous drugs, the problems of drug
addiction and crime have deep causes and can only be contained, not solved, by the police.
Whatever our society has been doing about these problems is not working.
Right now, our civilization risks being torn apart by the passions of extremism, due to a
misunderstanding. Please share this analysis, as an appeal to return to reason.
Reviewer comment: "My first thought is why it has been left to you to figure this out, when
we pay professional journalists to investigate these things, and why aren't the police and
politicians telling us about this."
A good question which gives a clue to something I've been wondering about. When other
commentators publish within hours, why does it take me a week or two to finish an article like
this? Journalists are usually under a deadline to produce stories quickly, whereas it takes a lot
of research and reflection to develop an original thesis into a fair and coherent explanation of
events.
Everyone tends to have an agenda, and to look for facts to support it. Police brutality or
looters running amok may be more newsworthy than a chronic problem like drug abuse. The best
agenda now is to take a break to focus on facts, or else an "Excited Delirium" could become a
contagion that engulfs our nation.
A young white man died in Dallas a few years ago, after being restrained by the police with
the knee on his back. My respondent believed he suffocated, but the actual autopsy said cardiac
arrest due to cocaine, overdose EXD, and stress from restraint by police officers.
Tony Timpa had not only taken an overdose of cocaine, plus he was off his anti-schizophrenia
medicine. Mental illness can also be a trigger for EXD, and according to the autopsy report, he
displayed all the classic symptoms. The first phase, fear and panic, was fear of the onset of
delirium itself -- he himself called 911 for help. By the time the police arrived, security
guards had already handcuffed him to restrain him. He was incoherent, out of control, found lying
on the ground, the typical EXD position. The police pinned him down with a knee on his back for
13 minutes, saying he was at risk of rolling into the roadway, and suddenly he was dead.
Tony Timpa died in 2016. The family got the run-around, [16]
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/...timpa/ and an autopsy was not released
until 2019. The body cam footage was released, which showed the police behaving callously towards
the subject. The officers were originally charged with homicide, but it was found they were not
at fault, charges were dropped and they were reinstated. Timpa's case is very similar to Floyd
case in many ways, and there are also many differences -- the starkest of course being the
intensity of the public reaction.
Based on the case history and autopsy findings, it is my opinion that Anthony Alan Timpa, a
32-year-old white male, died as a result of sudden cardiac death due to the toxic effects of
cocaine and physiologic stress associated with physical restraint.
Cardiac hypertrophy and bipolar disorder contributed to his death.
The mechanism of death in cases such as this is sometimes referred to as "excited delirium."
Classically, people affected by EDS are witnessed to exhibit erratic or aggressive behavior,
and will often "throw off" attempts at restraint, requiring multiple people to subdue them. The
person will appear to calm down and will suddenly become unresponsive. Most cases are
associated with drug intoxication and/or illness.
In this case, several factors likely contributed to the death. The surveillance and body cam
footage and witness reports fit the classic scenario of excited delirium and cocaine use and
illness (bipolar disorder) are common predisposing risk factors for EDS. Cocaine leads to
increased heart rate and increased blood pressure, making a cardiac arrhythmia more likely. Due
to his prone position and physical restraint by an officer, an element of mechanical or
positional asphyxia cannot be ruled out (although he was seen to be yelling and fighting for
the majority ofthe restraint). His enlarged heart size also put him at risk for sudden cardiac
death.
Although the decedent only had superficial injuries, the manner of death will be ruled a
homicide, as the stress of being restrained and extreme physical exertion contributed to his
demise.
MANNER OF DEATH: Homicide
[Signatures and seals of medical examiners]
(Note that homicide is not the same as murder, it also includes unintentional or accidental
actions contributing to death.)
Anthony Timpa autopsy p. 5, blood tests -- Cocaine and metabolites
If we add the three numbers above for cocaine and metabolytes together it comes to about 18
mg/L. This is anywhere from 3 to 18 times the lethal dose. With such an overdose, plus being
without his schizophrenia medication, Timpa had little if any chance of surviving.
Here's the Wikipedia entry on Timpa, part of a series on the Dallas police.
On August 10, 2016, Dallas Police killed Tony Timpa, a 32-year-old resident who had not taken
his medication. Timpa was already handcuffed while a group of officers pressed his body into the
ground while he squirmed. It took over three years for footage of the incident to be released.
The footage contradicted claims by Dallas Police that Timpa was aggressive Criminal charges
against three officers were dropped in March 2019 and officers returned to active duty."
Wikipedia doesn't even mention cocaine, although that was the main cause of death. Likewise,
the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
makes no mention of a drug overdose or excited delirium. By entitling the articles "Killing"
rather than "Death," Wikipedians appoint themselves as a court of law.
It must be observed that the Minneapolis officers acted with far more consideration towards
Floyd than the treatment Timpa received in Dallas. The way the officers made fun of Timpa was a
scandal. [19]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/tony-timpa-dal...m.html Then they were surprised when
he suddenly died.
It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself.
Isn't it odd, when we have a problem in the United States of many shootings by -- and of --
the police, that such an uproar has arisen, over a case where the police actually had little or
nothing to do with the man's demise?
The stress of restraint is most likely incidental. As reported by the WJEM, "Victims who do
not immediately come to police attention are often found dead in the bathroom surrounded by wet
towels and/or clothing and empty ice trays, apparently succumbing during failed attempts to
rapidly cool down." Hyperthermia or high body temperature is a classic symptom of EXD. Enormous
energy is released by an uncontrolled adrenaline spike. The heat also feeds delirium, which is a
familiar symptom of high fever.
Normally, it's assumed that stress factors contribute to a heart attack, as medical examiners
wrote in both the Floyd and Timpa cases. Yet the WJEM notes that "one important study found that
only 18 of 214 individuals identified as having EXD died while being restrained or taken into
custody." All victims died of cardiopulmonary arrest. Drug overdose and EXD are sufficient causes
for this outcome.
Both Floyd and Timpa had taken overdoses at triple the lethal level. Enough drugs to kill them
three times over. Yet you can only die once so how could the stress of restraint contribute more
to their deaths? You can't contribute to a glass that's already full three times over. That is a
little like saying that someone died because their parachute didn't open, and the weight of their
backpack also contributed to the fall. But they die from the fall once they hit the ground,
whether it's at 120 mph or 122 mph.
In conclusion, excited delirium should be treated as a medical condition, at high risk of
ending quickly in sudden death. An ambulance should be called immediately. Only the minimum
necessary restraint should be applied. Police and paramedics should be trained in the symptoms
and handling protocols.
It would be helpful if the AMA would recognize EXD as a real condition, rather than dismissing
it as a cover story for police brutality. Ignorance of the symptoms can lead to unintentional
cruelty by police, when they assume they are confronted by a typical case of a criminal violently
resisting arrest, rather than a patient with a life-threatening intoxication.
[2]
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/02/fentanyl-overdose-dont-count-naloxone-save-you-10822
"The patients who were dead on arrival had gone into cardiac arrest due to blood concentrations
of fentanyl that were much higher than what is administered therapeutically. " Patients who died
in hospital had concentrations of 9.5 ng/mL to 13 ng/mL. See also note 13. In other studies of
death from heroin and morphine, there were deaths from only 100 ng/ml of morphine and "all cases
with a blood concentration of 200 ng/ml and more of free morphine displayed a fatal outcome."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11040428_Fatal_versus_non-fatal_heroin_overdose_Blood_morphine_concentrations_with_fatal_outcome_in_comparison_to_those_of_intoxicated_drivers
(Heroin quickly metabolizes into morphine.) Fentanyl is considered 100 times more potent than
morphine. By this comparison, Floyd's blood fentanyl concentration could have been 10 times the
fatal level. In addition his morphine concentration of 86 ng/mL would usually be fatal by
itself.
Concentration levels are relative to the volume of blood, so are independent of body size.
[4]
The knee on the neck is a body hold, not a chokehold or carotid restraint, which involves putting
pressure precisely on both carotid arteries, located on either side of the throat. A carotid
restraint is usually applied by an elbow, and causes the subject to pass out in as little as 15
seconds. Blocking the arteries does not stop the breathing or heartbeat (pulmonary or cardiac
arrest), which Floyd suffered after being restrained for many minutes. Once pressure on the
arteries is released, the subject normally regains consciousness quickly.
[9]
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/acep_report_on_excited_delirium_syndrome_sept_2009.pdf
See also the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, "[t]he problems posed by, and thus the tactics
to be employed against, an unarmed, emotionally distraught individual who is creating a
disturbance or resisting arrest are ordinarily different from those involved in law enforcement
efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has recently committed a serious offense."
in "Explaining the Unexplainable: Excited Delirium Syndrome and Its Impact on the Objective
Reasonableness Standard for Allegations of Excessive Force," https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=lj
The first few pages relate a narrative similar to the Floyd case, involving multiple police
subduing a violent EXD victim, who suddenly dies from exhaustion. A media uproar then arises
against alleged police brutality.
[11]
From the incident report of the fire truck that was called to the scene, it appears that both
police and bystanders called 911 for emergency medical services (EMS). The first call was Code 2,
apparently for Floyd's nosebleed, which summoned a fire truck, followed by a more urgent code 3,
which was said to bring an ambulance within six minutes. It appears the police called the
ambulance when Floyd's breathing and heartbeat stopped.
https://www.startribune.com/first-responders-worked-nearly-an-hour-to-save-floyd-before-he-was-pronounced-dead/570806682/
"Floyd goes limp and appears to lose consciousness. Hennepin EMS then arrive six minutes after
the distress call." The article refers to the incident report by the fire truck, http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@mpd/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-224680.pdf
which has a note implying the first call to EMS was from police and another call came from
bystanders: "No clear info on pt [patient] or location was given by either initial pd [police
department] officers or bystanders." We need an incident report from the ambulance.
[12]
TV news clips showing police restraining subjects who are exhibiting EXD symptoms and violently
resisting arrest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qCqjuqEWEc A
TV news report and cellphone video on a more humane method of managing an EXD case, thanks to
police training, putting safety of the subject and of bystanders first, rather than restraints.
However, no details are given about the outcome or the drug dose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qCqjuqEWEc
[14]
Wikipedia has a detailed narrative of the incident here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
. Certain notes there support the thesis of fentanyl intoxication, and resisting arrest as part
of an EXD syndrome. Floyd struggled with Lane before leaving his own vehicle, and again when
Kueng, then all four officers, tried to get him into the squad car. Floyd already complained he
couldn't breathe before they tried to get him into the police car, without any neck restraint,
indicating the onset of respiratory depression from fentanyl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyd-protest-updates-arrests-america-approaching-10000/story?id=71038665
"They all tried to force Floyd into the backseat, during which time Floyd said he could not
breathe, according to the complaint."
He also fell down twice, which could be seen either as a sign of intoxication or resisting
arrest. The officers knew it was a drug overdose, as Thao told bystanders, "This is why you don't
do drugs, kids." By the way, this Wikipedia article should be named "Death of George Floyd," as
an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
[21]
"According to Dr. Assaad Sayah, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Cambridge Health Alliance, Excited
Delirium Syndrome can be best explained as a 'physical response to an actual psychological [or
drug] problem resulting in their autonomic systems producing too much adrenaline.' Dr. Sayah
analogizes it to 'having too much nitrous in a car; eventually the engine will blow up.' In most
cases, the cause of death is either 'a heart attack or, less frequently, respiratory failure.'
Dr. Vincent Di Maio estimated that Excited Delirium Syndrome kills 800 people every year in
police altercations because the victims "are just overexciting [their] heart from the drugs and
from the struggle.'" Op. cit.https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=lj
I think more likely he died of a Covid-19 induced heart attack. Heart disease is the #1
comorbidity of Covid19. Doctors have talked about patients of Covid19 dying of sudden heart
attacks at a high rate. Floyd was Covid19 positive, and he also had heart disease and
hypertension, the top two comorbidity of Covid19.
That is over three times the lethal overdose, following earlier reports where the highest dose
survived was 4.6 ng/mL.
Good points. And before this, all we ever heard about was how deadly fentanyl is. It killed Tom
Petty and is so potent, it killed him via skin absorption! Now, however, the Back Flow Media
(BFM) ;-), has agendas to push and truth ain't one of them.
Unfortunately, those who need to learn these facts have no interest in truth. Logic, reason,
common sense, and all such things are thrown out; instead, the mob controls based upon who
yells the loudest, not who makes the most fact-based sense.
People don't riot over the specific police murder that sets it off. They riot because they are
sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–one of the ways being to murder them. If you
don't like the Floyd murder, I got a couple thousand other cop murders for ya, and I would like
to see you write such a stirring defense of cop-killed bodies riddled with hundreds of rounds
of automatic weapons fire. Including all the dead white people.
No denying that Floyd was a thug. Neither would any amount of denying alter the fact that he
died at the hand – rather the knee – of a racist cop. Get over it, supremacists.
It really does not matter. The Jewish mainstream media has tried and convicted the officers.
They will never get a fair trial and are screwed. Saint George will have to be avenged or there
will be more riots, arson and looting which the same degenerate media will call "protests".
So they could have left him alone and he would have died anyway, another statistic.
It does imply intrusive policing invites unintended consequences. For the counterfeit
$20, a summons would have been sufficient. Then George could have crawled off, go home to
Jesus, and we could have been spared the phoniest and most overblown freak show since the Fall
of Babylon.
Let them patrol their own 'hoods and be done with all this.
Fentanyl Floyd was a drug peddler and a petty criminal who got caught in the act of selling
drugs by patrolling police. Panicking, he swallowed his own stash and overdosed as a result.
Now he is being retconned into a saint.
I think Floyd was being passive aggressive rather than resisting as such. What was done to him
by Chaving was punishment out of frustration, but the duration was well outside normal
practice.
Floyd already began to complain "I can't breathe" a few minutes before the neck restraint
was applied,
That will be a dangerous argument for Chauvin's defence counsel to make to the court,
because it will be opening the door to a telling counter argument: Floyd's breathing was
restricted after he reported respiratory distress.
If it was a Fentanyl overdose they ought to have given him Narcan antidote, not put weight
on his ribcage while he was face down and his hands cuffed behind him; a contributory cause
according to the autopsy, which found wrist bruises.
@Anon
There's no such thing as a heart attack induced by covid-19.
People who have been hospitalized for heart disease, and subsequently test positive for
covid-19, don't usually die from the virus they die from their underlying heart disease
condition.
I saw the video. Looked like just another hoax to me. Weight on his other knee, looking right
at the camera while "killing" someone, yada yada. Officer Chauvin, fer Chrissake. Officer
Racist would be too much even for stupid goyim. 8 minutes my ass. Aces and eights anyone? The
point of this fentenyl dohicky is to pretend it really happened. Just another deep state psyop
I say. But go ahead and argue about it. Makes it easier to steal 10 trillion from the US
taxpayer.
This guy is channeling Johnny Cochran. Yes, we know O.J. didn't do it either, because Nicole
Brown was high on lethal amounts of cocaine, and Ron Goldman was mainlining deadly amounts of
horse(heads almost fall off when this happens)
You see, the amount of imaginary fantasy is endless which feeds the inter-civilian war of
people-against-people while the State remains blissfully secure knowing that those who control
the media(narrative) will always win
Otherwise, yea, we get it, the police are always honest, justice is blind, your vote counts,
your money is secure, god loves you, the vaccine is harmless, and your children are doing a
great service by telling the government instructor(school teacher) that you smoke pot, so the
state can seize everything you own.
Your underlying analysis is incorrect. People overdose at much higher levels and live through
it. Maybe the cops should have been more interested in why he was presenting in an altered
state and called an EMT, than carting him off to jail for a possible forged $20 bill.
The mean serum concentrations of fentanyl in their patients was (52.9 ng/mL) with a range of
7.9-162.3 ng/ml.
One of the 18 patients died in hospital. Five patients underwent cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, one required extracorporeal life support, three required intubation, and two
received bag-valve-mask ventilation. One patient had recurrence of toxicity after 8 hours after
naloxone discontinuation. Seventeen of 18 patients required boluses of naloxone, and four
required prolonged naloxone infusions (26–39 hours). All 18 patients tested positive for
fentanyl in the serum. Quantitative assays conducted in 13 of the sera revealed fentanyl
concentrations of 7.9 to 162 ng/mL (mean = 52.9 ng/mL).
The author starts one paragraph with "in conclusion", LOL again LOL
Once again missing the point,intentionally,misdirecting. It's a FALSE FLAG
Street theater duh, set up Fromthestart. Plandemic.Seriously,it creates jobs.
Liars oops I mean lawyers,oops I mean poly ticks,locally,nationally,
all the way to the jewdicial branch and congress and beyond.GET REAL.
It's far worse than that.An elder told me they don't believe in IQ.
The facts and investigations and evidence don't do nuffin after the incurred LOSS
of SO much time,money,energy,community,productivity,confidence,SANITY etc.
THIS is COUP and" it's no where near in conclusion." that's my comment,thanks
peace,love, life
Excellent article which should be on the front page of every major paper in the USA. The part
on the Excited Delirium Syndrome is new to me but it's interesting .It illustrates nicely this
civil disorder has nothing to do with Mr Floyd. I just hope officer Chauvins defence team makes
good use of this information.
As a retired pharmacist I'm surprised by the use of fentanyl as a drug of abuse. The
therapeutic dose banding is very small, its very potent , it is a very short acting drug and
it's a drug that only an anaesthetist should consider using or abusing. Its a very potent
respiratory depressant that has a nasty habit of producing a delayed action hours after the
affect has apparently worn off. Fentanyl also causes heart slowing and any anaesthetist would
give other drugs to counter that effect to keep the patient under control.
Now lets look at the photo of other officers using the correct Israeli defence force pin
down
Notice that the knee and leg not doing the pinning is not on the ground therefore all the
weight of the body is brought to bear on the victims neck and the major blood vessels under the
knee. Now look at officer Caulvin his right boot toe is on the ground along with his right
knee. Try it yourselves on a pillow, you cannot bring any force to bear , at best you are
holding someone with that pose. He also looks under no stress from Mr Floyd with his hold. At
5′ 8" I would be using the IDF method if I had to restrain Mr Floyd, but lets be honest I
would avoid him full stop. There is also the fun part of trying to hit and subdue someone who
thanks the the Fentanyl in his system would feel little pain.
This whole thing looks very suspicious to me , and the speed with which the thing went global
even more suspicious. The speed that people appeared with expensive t-shirts and hoodies all
bearing
"I cannot breath" printed on the front in many locations simultaneously along with the piles of
bricks and attacks on statues has a pre-planned Soros and Antifa agenda all over it.
I'm sure that the author of this article, who I assume isn't a drug addict, will be totally
fine if a racist white thug in uniform with a history of murdering people knelt on his neck for
nine minutes with its hands in its pockets. Yes, it was the drugs all along!
His ability to resist four officers trying to get him into the squad car is typical of EXD
cases.
When did this happen, exactly? The security cam video show that two [2] officers succeeded
to get Floyd into the back seat of the cruiser. Then, one officer pulled him out on the other
side.
I've read plenty about ExD, and believe that Chauvin will make a successful defense. Your '4
men failed' spared me reading this long slog.
Gotta protect those israeli occupation troops at all costs and keep their colonial police state
(that's the usa, neanderthals) a colonial police state. Should those dumb goy animals unite and
force our quislings out, who knows what might befall our "sacred homeland".
Did drugs kill George Floyd ? Does it matter ?
This affair is one of public perception.
The perception IS that Chauvin used excessive force. The guy died after that "force" whether
excessive or not. People, rightly or wrongly see cause & effect.
As for your points about overdose ? Fairly weak. Every minute that passes the likelihood of
overdose decreases. Overdoses don't hide in your system for 20 minutes (excluding digestion or
assimilation) & then jump out & shut down your heart.
Floyd may have appeared intoxicated, but he also appeared functional for a "normal" unstressful
setting.
He sat down, handcuffed, against a wall for some minutes without "losing it".
Also interesting -- they had him in the police car -- then dragged him out for lack of
compliance. Why ? Let him sit in the locked, secure police back seat, So he screams & makes
a fuss ? Arrestees are known to do that. But no, they drag him out (still handcuffed) &
THREE of them get on top of him: one on legs, one on the torso, & one on his neck. And stay
that way for nearly 9 minutes. And its not like they don't know he's physically problematic --
they call the EMS early on.
Now lets imagine that you have a problem with your heart or breathing (he tells them numerous
times about his breathing, not necessarily entirely from physical airway blockage, but from
panic -- psychology rendering the act of breathing difficult )– would being pinned to the
road by 3 burly men, one of them exerting some pressure on your neck not cause some
degree of panic ? Could some people be near to literally shitting themselves from panic ? Would
such fear & panic not be contraindicated in a man for whom you have already called the EMS
?
Funny thing, was I a police man I would have asked Floyd to sit in his car (yes, take his keys
& guard him) while I had a look at this so-called counterfeit bill. I mean, that's the
point isn't it ? this whole abortion rests on passing a dodgy $ 20. (Knowingly passing: I
wonder how many shonky US bills there are out there millions ?).
So Floyd is probably a scumbag -- so ? The whole affair looks appalling. And that really
IS the point here.
"Systemic racism" is simply POC and non-European descended Whites saying that they cannot live
in Western (or, indeed, industrial) society,
The POC are correct in this. Who, after all, is qualified to tell them that they are wrong?
George Floyd was destroyed by "systemic racism" in the above sense. Even East Asians and South
Asians with high enough IQ and sufficient emotional control to live in Western (industrial)
society strongly condemn the lack of organization in such societies, and the absence of the
protective social organizations (caste, a directive government/social organization) that are
characteristic of their homelands. Middle Eastern Whites condemn the absence of the tribal /
honor / religious system that characterizes their countries of origin.
POC and non-European descended Whites want Western ( industrial) society changed or destroyed
for their benefit.
This is a serious and irresolvable conflict of interest, for the European descended Whites are
just as unable to live in the home societies of various POC and non-European descended White
groups as these groups are unable to live in Western (industrial) society.
Note that the above irresolvable conflict of interest is not ever discussed directly. This
is characteristic of major irresolvable conflicts of interest. WW II is a good example of this
(see the American Pravda articles, unz.com , for
support of this assertion). All of the participants (except possibly Hitler, who apparently
wanted a European Empire allied to the British Empire) thought it was "them or us" (hence the
"unconditional surrender" demands from the Allies), and thus had strong reasons for fighting.
These reasons were not used in propaganda by any side. Propaganda based on self interest of the
"only one Empire will survive" type makes poor propaganda. So does propaganda based on what
amounts to a multi-sided volkwandering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswanderung
), which is what we seem to be entering into.
Good propaganda is smoke -- mythic appeals, but to a non-applicable myth, with irrelevant
"proof". George Floyd is an example of how this is supposed to work.
The interesting thing about this situation is that it is the OC and non-European descended
Whites are the ones insisting that they cannot live in the West / industrial civilization.
Granted that the Left wing of the Democratic Party is the proximate cause of the current
offensive, attempted Antifa leadership of the offensive has been largely repudiated or simply
ignored by the various POC. Understanding the basics of this situation requires that the
objections of the POC and non-European descended Whites be taken seriously and understood, as I
have tried to do above.
@Sean
If it was a Fentanyl overdose they ought to have given him Narcan antidote,
Are you serious?
These cops meant to make an instant medical diagnosis.
Decide the problem and drug involved.
Produce an antidote.
And administer it.
What planet are you on?
And had they administered the wrong drug .?
They would be crucified as well.
Its hard to believe you can really believe that comment yourself.
Its sheer prejudice and blah for BLM.
And a grossly unfair accusation.
*Since the MSM and many of our leaders are in sync with BLM, we should just turn the country
over to them since they've done a great job within their own "neighborhoods."
*It's pretty useless to say the MSM loves BLM. The MSM does what the folks who control/own
it tell it to do.
*Per BLM's demand, cops should stop patrolling black neighborhoods and instead boost
patrolling non-black neighborhoods to reduce crime there.
Police were not arresting him for the counterfeit bill. If you pass a counterfeit bill you are
interviewed by police so they can attempt to trace its origin.
Where did you get cash?
Where do you cash your checks?
Did you get this as change for a larger bill? Where?
He was detained because when they came up to him in the car he was obviously intoxicated and
behind the wheel. Also rewatch the security tape and see the cop talks to him for 2 minutes and
at one point is so worried by whatever Floyd was doing he unholstered his gun but didn't point
it. Floyd also had no ID on him.
So it's a cascade of events that lead to his arrest. Police can't ID an intoxicated person
behind the wheel of a car. Try to get him out of the car and he immediately starts
resisting.
@Sparkylyle92
" I saw the video. Looked like just another hoax to me"
Here's an excellent analysis of 3 of the alleged live, completely contradictory videos on
this alleged event, which quite clearly show it to be hoax perpetrated via crisis actors, fake
police and EMT's. :
@Anonymous
I'm curious about this "racist cop" trope that's become pretty common. Is it common for
"racists" to be married to someone of another race as Chauvin is? I'd think a "racist" would
favor a spouse of their own race, no? Seems to me, to you crazies on the left, Pale skin makes
a person a "racist ". It's become a truth in America that the only definition of "racist" is
White. The word is, therefore, meaningless. Floyd died because of his drug use and criminal
activity. Not a knee on the back of his neck.
@SOL
I second that. Problem is there is no satisfying the BLM folks. They are suffering from PTSD
because of our history of slavery. This is sort of like vets who have PTSD, but the key
difference being vets actually participated in a war whereas no black living was a part of our
history of slavery.
The solution is for the BLM and lgbtqi folks to join forces and put forth a black tranny
candidate to solve all our problems.
Why should we believe the "report"? why not believe our lying eyes? Who released this "report"?
Where is an independent verification? I'll wait, thanks, for a report that has been released by
an independent source that is confirmed by the family.
I'm sure that the author of this article, who I assume isn't a drug addict, will be
totally fine if a racist white thug in uniform with a history of murdering people knelt on
his neck for nine minutes with its hands in its pockets. Yes, it was the drugs all along!
When I see a comment like this on an article as closely reasoned and supported as this one,
I wonder whether public schools teach the ability to read.
You can check my previous posts and see that these are precisely the points I made from a
very casual glance at the autopsy report and a little knowledge of police motivations. That was
right after the incident occurred. Videos and photos are very poor evidence because they only
raise emotional response.
Thank you, Ron Unz, for being brave enough to publish this article.
I guess the defense is entitled to a defense. I guess that is the benefit of having two
coroner's reports. The skill and advocacy of the police unions to manufacture alternative
theories and creates smoke as defense is light years ahead of antifa, BLM or the KKKK.
Te problem with the the current system is not dug induced males sitting on their cars o
falling asleep in drive thrus or jogging in around empty construction sites or waiting for tow
trucks, or selling cigarettes, or avoiding creepy guys stalking the in apartment complexes, or
sleeping in their beds or or walking with some white women --
It's the loss of credibility. The police unions can have the officers walk out as they ave
routinely done as a means of black mail holding cities hostage, but at the end of the day, what
technology is doing is unavailing a side of Wyatt Earp the public would rather not see even if
they know what's up. It's the system in a manner of exposure unlike it's even been used to.
It's the collapse of the arguments for invading countries that are not a threat. It's the
collapse of the internal dialogues among the agencies in multiple arenas of government force.
It's Ruby Ridge, It's Waco, It's Baltimore, It's Fergusaon. It's Oakland. It's Baton Rouge.
It's New Jersey. It's . . . It's balloting were the 1 per-center is suddenly number one,. Utter
nonsense such as written in the Fergason Report. It's nonsense such as the Ferguson Effect.It's
a news system, that is serious doubt. It's bail out for WS, repeatedly and then throwing the
payees f bail out out of works. It is stagnant wages. It's hiring and executive to make a
serious shift ad the best he could do hire ore part time citizens and embrace more
immigrants.
It's the system saying it's not the system. It;s loosening up credit for businesses and the
rules for consumers tighter. It's watching something on film as it happens and then being told
what you saw is not what happened.
It's the unmasking of tactics used by the system to shield itself from accountability. And
perhaps worst of all, we believing what the system tells us because believing reality is just
to tough a road to to travel. It is the system saying . . . it's not the system.
-- -- --
uhh No. I didn't believe there was a reason to invade Ira or Afghanistan or any of the
subsequent intentions by the former Vietnam protester "we lost Vietnam" crowd as I am that Mr.
Floyd died from a drug overdoese.
And none of the smoke and mirrors: that Pres Hussein was a bad person, that the Taliban were
in on 9/11, that the family occupying Ruby Ridge were Nazis, Mr. Koresh was a demon, there's a
Fergason Effect, that blacks are just bad innately and whites are angelic beings along with
browns and yellows worthy of pass, or that IQ is destined by some unique, unknown and unseen
genetic code, that the Russians sabotaged US elections, . . . or US lost Vietnam (no it did
not). If I start buying onto the nonsense spouted as truth to escape accountability before you
know it, I will start advocating that slaves were just immigrants coming the continent for
better jobs and life.
@Sean
Apart from Emily's point I note that you state that Chauvin constricted Floyd's breathing
without evidence despite it not being accepted by the author of the article.
This proves, the sainthood of a very simian looking convicted criminal doped up coon, that you
can fool some of the people all of the time. The Jooz are laughing all the way to the
ban total control of the World.
@Anon4578
A passer of counterfeit bills is typically given an opportunity by the cheated merchant to make
him whole before the cops are called. Saint George, for whatever reasons, didn't avail himself
of the opportunity extended to him to do just that.
@Wuok
He prolly would have had they just left him alone. Then they'd be in jail for failure to render
first aid. The rioting would have still happened. Heads or tails, you lose with niggers.
@Rich
Chauvin was probably a screaming liberal until he got involved with the chink. The thing about
chinks is they're known to hate everyone equally who isn't a chink.
It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself.
That is not strange. The reason BLM choose cases where the policeman only did their job is
because otherwise, they'll risk seeing the policeman go to jail, and then there'd be no
systemic racism to rail against. Only when you are sure the policeman will be exonerated in a
court of law, can you rile the animals without risking the party coming to an end before the
music even starts.
@RouterAl
For the time being, an educated comment like yours gets a hearing, in contrast to the
unreasoned moral posturing of so many others here. For so long as they can hide behind "good
intentions," they can run from inconvenient facts. UR recently featured an article and comments
on Dietrich Doerner's Logic of Failure , which says it best about these disgusting
phonies who'd never dream of reexamining their positions based on the horrors they cause.
"In our political environment, it would seem, we are surrounded on all sides with good
intentions. But the nurturing of good intentions is an utterly undemanding mental exercise,
while drafting plans to realize those worthy goals is another matter. Moreover, it is far
from clear whether "good intentions plus stupidity" or "evil intentions plus intelligence"
have wrought more harm in the world. People with good intentions usually have few qualms
about pursuing their goals. As a result, incompetence that would otherwise have remained
harmless often becomes dangerous, especially as incompetent people with good intentions
rarely suffer the qualms of conscience that sometimes inhibit the doings of competent people
with bad intentions. The conviction that our intentions are unquestionably good may sanctify
the most questionable means.
Excerpt From
The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations
Dietrich Dorner
This material may be protected by copyright.
@Thulean
Friend What exactly did happen to the white substance that clearly fell out of his left
pocket while against the wall? Odd nobody mentions that.
George killed himself. He took a lethal overdose of Fentanyl. The meth and the fentanyl
combined cause delirium and heart problems. These two drugs caused what is called "Excited
Delirium Syndrome" which is usually fatal.
When the officers pulled him out of the Mercedes–he was already foaming at the mouth.
These four officers need to be released and given their jobs back. Their arrests are just a
lynch mob by the liberal establishment. George killed George. He gambled with his life, put
himself in that position with allegedly passing counterfeit money. Furthermore, George was DWI;
he was sitting in the drivers seat. Even though you are not driving, sitting in the driver's
seat is DWI, Driving while impaired. Who needs to be arrested is the Drug Dealer that sold him
the Fentanyl.
Moreover, Excited Delirium syndrome causes "Wooden Chest". That is what George was
experiencing, His drug cocktail killed him.
1 million to 1.25 million Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of
the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli
alone (these numbers do not include the European people who were enslaved by Morocco and by
other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast)
"From bases on the Barbary coast, North Africa, the Barbary pirates raided ships traveling
through the Mediterranean and along the northern and western coasts of Africa, plundering
their cargo and enslaving the people they captured."
From at least 1500, the pirates also conducted raids along seaside towns of Italy, Spain,
France, England, the Netherlands and as far away as Iceland, capturing men, women and
children.
On some occasions, settlements such as Baltimore, Ireland were abandoned following the
raid, only being resettled many years later. Between 1609 and 1616, England alone had 466
merchant ships lost to Barbary pirates.
@Anonymous
Are you sure that you are not a racist or a progeny of racists?
As Confederate statues are torn down in the USA, one wonders: Are we going to ask Egypt to
change its name, tear down its pyramids which were built by slaves too? And destroy mummies
of pharaohs that had slaves?
Are the black tribes of Africa, the ones who sold the slaves they took from other tribes
when at war and sold to the Arab slave traders, are we going to change the names of those
African tribes too? And tear down the names of their leaders?
No comments? Here is more:
Regarding white slaves in Africa and black slaves in the New World, it is often overlooked
that slaves were enslaved before they were bought and sold by Jews, Arabs, and Gentiles. The
unasked question is: Who enslaved them?
Things that used to be true before political correctness set in: More whites were brought
as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States.
All this obsessing over what pretty boy George died of is irrelevant. Cops putting their knee
on the neck, the most vulnerable part of the human body is wrong period! No sympathy for the
thug, he was a menace to society. What should be obsessed over is police culture has not been
to "protect and serve" since at least the 70's. They see themselves as "at war" with the whole
of society, from the suburban soccer mom to the ghetto thug.
It's widely known cops will take a routine traffic stop, and poke and prod at the driver to try
to rile them up and get the person to react and give the cop an attitude to escalate the
interaction into an altercation. In the suburbs, quiet rural areas it matters not. Race matters
not. They'll pull this shit in the most docile neighborhoods, with the most docile of people,
regardless of color.
I'm neither pro cop or anti cop, I see them as a necessary evil. They'd be a hell of alot less
evil if reforms were made in their attitude toward the public at large, and if they were held
accountable for all their various abuses of power. They also need their privileged status as
some sort of exalted special class "above the public" obliterated! Cops on the whole are some
of the most corrupt, anti social, sadistic people in society. I know many of them personally,
both city and suburban.
As much as I dislike the rioting, looting, arson and chaos, I'm enjoying the karmic retribution
the boys in blue in receiving.
@obwandiyag
It could also be that a certain race is a bit more prone to get into drugs, crime,
prostitution,
and so on. And truth to be told hard work is not in their DNA. As long as you keep
denying FACTS this will never end.
Canada has to bring thousands of Mexicans and Guatemalans to work on the farm fields,
while half of this people are on welfare, and when they do work they only want easy jobs,
bus drivers, taxi drivers, or for the governments where most of the time they just don't
perform
as well. In the mean time people like me are being taxed close to 60% to pay for all these
social programs which only benefits the laziest
Since when gross injustice against a once subdued person legitimate anti-humanity? That is how,
to a naive person consumes daily propaganda by the usa government and their presstitute which
reflect an appearance of "good america" while genuinely reflecting a clandestine disdain for
what is right or such unjustified violence cloaked under the line of duty against the general
population would not be so common in the touted "land of the free." The magnet (of the peaceful
protesters from australia, to europe and latin america) is not to a "good free land of
jewmerica" but to the missing and lack of legitimate Justice parroted along with the moral
compass touted by the usa government and their law enforcement while the true reality of
irrectitude makes itself apparent in videos such as the one of George floyd's unjustified
assassination/murder, where unjustified violence is evident. Thus, with these uncensored videos
by the peaceful population or general public of the usa, the truth did not remain hidden by
manipulated narratives of the jew-owned presstitute and media in favor of the cia/usa
government flavor of their wicked ideology preference while cloaked in sheep's clothing.
In conclusion, When an individual poses a serious threat to an officer or another
individual, according to the National Institute of Justice, the "peace-officer" (as they are
glorifyingly touted) is generally authorized by law to use lethal weapons (i.e., firearms) to
protect himself or herself or others by stopping the individual's actions. You don't want to
realize that there is IRREFUTABLY no serious threat nor danger to life once a person (of any
color in handcuffs as the estate of George Floyd was and many others) is subdued. And, those
marching (or rather peacefully protesting to show solidarity) in many other foreign nation
states display how morally magnetic is the actual legitimate axiom of the interest of justice
because that no democracy can exist unless each of its citizens is as capable of outrage at
injustice to another as he is of outrage at unjustice to himself.
I don't care so much for the cops since they would put you in a cage with these animals for
thought crimes like posing the JQ and denying the Holycaust without any hesitation at all. They
are paid mercs and sometimes they get burned. Similarly the light property damage incurred by
corporate storefronts and reduction in quality of life for liberal urban dwellers is not at all
a concern for me, and I honestly hope this goes on in perpetuity until the statistical reality
of black crime is literally beaten into their skulls. As for George Floyd he will no longer be
producing any more of his ilk. He was set to marry a lower class white woman and open an
establishment eponymously named the Konvict Kitchen, all in defiance of the principles of
nuptiality and common decency. The former enhances black criminality by combining pathological
white genes from the classes which in Europe would have their breeding restricted by cultural
and economic constraints but are allowed to flourish here generating trailer parks and white
trash that with miscegenation and negrification are as much of a danger to society as the the
African type they complement.
In any case having seen the footage from these events it strikes me that these cops are
themselves very unintelligent. In the case of the Atlanta negro aptly named Rayshard they were
inclined to play junior detective and gameshow host for upwards of 30 minutes when it was
obvious that they should have immediately incapacitated the feral groid and dragged him away
from a motor vehicle capable of causing far more damage than the plastic dart guns they ended
up wrestling over. Instead they allowed the monkey to shuck and jive for what seemed like an
hour repeating the same inane phrases over and over again. I would have been inclined to dump a
mag in the baboon at the 2 minute mark. These two men were themselves products of negrification
and no doubt they likened the ill-fated negro to their favorite afleets and sports stars they
worship on TV, giving him chance after chance to behave like a human being with around a
standard deviation more aptitude than they should have given him credit for. If they had a
choice between the ineffective Taser device and a firearm they ended up using it would have
gone better.
I think this country is screwed in the long run and I just hope it ends in fireworks. The
long and inexorable drag into stupidity is maddening.
I doubt anyone cares what he died from, they can just go "change" their signs to some guy in
Georgia. They all look like hoaxes but they needed something for "change" to happen. Back to
online petitions and countless fake hoaxes and more toppling anything whuhhh, and more
historical revision to erase whuhhhh, can't even spell it anymore.
Who called the police on the martyrs? Why would a black person call the police on a black man
asleep in the line at Wendy's in Georgia, when they could have just drove around him. Why have
the white police bother him? It all just looks like more lefty "change" helped out by the good
folks at Netflix or something.
He also had sickle cell anemia. The coronary report mention a lot of "sickled" cells, but only
postmortem. It is knows that sufferers of SCD show that kind of pattern: Death induces it.
However, George Floyd was also COVID19 positive, and there are signs that COVID19 decreases
Hemoglobin levels:
Primate models of Covid-19 (Munster 2020) and human Covid-19 patients have subnormal
haemoglobin levels (Chen 2020). Clinical evaluationof almost 100 Wuhan patients reveals
haemoglobin levels below the normal range in most patients as well as increased total
bilirubin and elevated serum ferritin (Chen 2020). Hyperbilirubinemia is observed in acute
porphyria (Sassa 2006) and would be consistent with ineffective erythropoiesis (Sulovska
2016) and rapid haemoglobin turnover.
@ICANREAD
They did call the EMTs. That's what they were waiting for. Maybe you shouldn't try to analyze
the situation until after you learn what the situation involved?
@Wuok
He was dying before he even left the car. He collapsed when they pulled him out of it. He
collapsed after they helped him walk to the wall. He was complaining that he couldn't breathe
before he had a knee on his neck. My sense was that when he saw the cops were coming for him,
he swallowed his drugs. Pretty common.
@EliteCommInc.
And criminals who break into pregnant women's houses and jam guns into their pregnant guts
really do get their just deserts when they hastily swallow all the drugs they were dealing to
avoid going back to the joint.
"It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself."
It would b strange if what you said was accurate.
enforcement, It is not singular artifact.
I is not any singular death, not even a group of deaths that are rare at the hands of
police. It's the ten million plus arrests misdemeanors primarily that end with violence against
unarmed citizens that are disproportionately used with respect to african americans it's the
related history. It is the sentencing. It is the pea bargain system . . .
It's the crack vs regular cacaine narratives nonsense, it is the rhetorical dialogue -- it
is not one single thing, but a compendium of constructs across the country over time.
@Anon
It seems more likely that the heart attack came because the heart was overworked due to low
blood-oxygen levels due to the sedated breathing from the opioid.
Such analysis is diversion from the main discussion. It does not matter if Floyd was on drugs
or a criminal. Why was he treated brutally by the police. Too much power given to the law
enforcement. And the bad apples always take advantage of it. Observe the way they walk. No sign
of humility or being a servant of society or a protector.
Race riots yes. but so many whites and no African Americans are rioting, too. It is economic
disparity and hopelessness, stupid, and that is what the pundits are avoiding purposely.
Brilliant presentation.
I was arrested one time and was put into car. Interestingly enough I had difficulty breathing
and I did not have any drugs in me.
I did ask officer to open window in the car but he did not. He did not care.
@SOL
Exactly. They would not even spend the time to read this excellent example of actual
journalism.
Their hatred blinds them to all facts.
Talking time is over. Balkanize the failed multi-cultural experiment. Ethnostate is NEEDED.
Separate from Hate.
Anyone else getting rather peed off by the huge donations to BLM, apparently about to flow in
– as reparations for the proceeds from slavery by Briitish firms.
Seems to me these companies should be starting at home.
What about the proceeds from mills and factories here in England where the labour was little
more than slavery.
Forced on the poor for pathetic and utterly meagre wages – amounting to slavery –
as the option to the 'poor house'.
Children of seven working 12 hours a day for pennies.
Many dying and crippled by the machinery under which they had to scrabble.
I am sure there are millions – not least up north – who would very much like some
recognition for the quite awful exploitation of their forebears.
Oops – sorry – they all have white faces and are not prepared to commit mayhem,
arson and criminal damage to support any claim.
Time, maybe to start, it works.
Maybe we less than aristocratic English people should start a few demands in payment for the
terrible conditions of the industrial 'revolution', for the Victorian slums, more appalling
than black Americans ever endured.
You don't see the black Americans sporting rickets, TB, suffering starvation, diptheria and
smallpox to mention a few.
Or kids forced up chimneys.
I wonder how Dickens would be feeling today – at Lloyds etc.
Disgusted and sick, I imagine.
Don't get me started on those 'pressed' into the navy .
@chuckywiz
Why was he treated brutally by the police.
Was he?
The autopsy doesn't appear to record 'brutal physical injury' of the kind you appear to claim
.
Could you detail the evidence that demonstrates such 'brutality'
Restraint surely does not come into that category and there is no or very little indication on
his neck or throat.
Clarify the facts, Chucky, so we can all see the cuts, bruises, abrasions
Perhaps you will also give us some information as to how you would have handled a very large
such individual full of fentanyl and other substances .
@Wizard
of Oz The author of the article talks about the knee on Floyd's neck only. But while he may
be correct, that knee was not the only thing going on. I am talking about the other
things including Chauvin's other knee. Officer Lane seems to have diagnosed Floyd's medical
status as one unlikely to stand up to the tender mercies being administered by Chauvin. Lane,
the first cop to talk to Floyd, had immediately observed he had been foaming at the mouth.
Later, once Chauvin got on top of Floyd, Lane suggested turning him face up, and said he was
worried about EXD. Lane's partner complained and said 'don't do that' to Chauvin in relation to
him kneeling on Floyd.
If a 300lb wrestler was to apply a tight bodylock (bear hug) and keep it on tight, breathing
would halt and the one being bear hugged would quite likely die within 10 minutes. Floyd's
breathing was constricted by his bulk and being put face down with cuffs pulling his arms
against the side of his ribcage. The weight and duration of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's back
surely is what tipped the balance and killed him. There is an ex cop and prison guard who
admits he used to deliberately break the fingers of resisting convicts who points to the sun
glasses perched on Chauvin's head and the casual placement of his hands while kneeling on Flyod
as clear indications there was no meaningful resistance from him, see here .
It is not mere opinion that Floyd was not actively resisting arrest during the several
minutes he had Chauvin on top of him, because officer Chauvin was recorded explaining the
reason Floyd was being pinned down was he had not cooperated earlier , when they had
tried to put him in the police car. Hence Chavin virtually admitted it was a was a physical
punishment for previous non-cooperation, but in law Chavin is not permitted to use the
restraint technique as a punitive measure, which he knew very well. Hence Chauvin was commiting
a felony, wham, in the course of which someone died, bam. Wham bam: felony murder.
@chuckywiz
Actually, this article touches on what you consider the "main discussion" when it assesses
whether or not the cop was following procedure. Is the man being vilified as the worst person
on earth just a guy who was doing the job he was taught to do? If you think the rules are
wrong, you're free to work to change them. This cop will face an American court, not some
post-revolutionary tribunal. The question is whether or not his trial will look more like the
latter than the former.
Hispanic cop in Georgia shoots and kills white guy who grabs Hispanic cop's taser = NO coverage
by national media. Hell, I live in Georgia and I didn't even hear about this one.
White cop in Georgia shoots and kills black guy who grabs White cop's taser = NONSTOP 24/7
coverage by national media.
SHOULD THE MEDIA BE LABELED AS A HATE GROUP BY THE $PLC?
Blacks can only achieve because they have White admixture or because they reside in White
societies. Too few of them are smart enough to even build sufficient infrastructure in Africa
to allow the Black intellectual elite to achieve.
Sub-Saharan Africans have never made a contribution to the world. If allowed to become too
numerous they destroy previously-thriving and safe White cities.
This is why Blacks seethe with jealousy and hatred of Whites yet can't seem to stay away
because they want what we create and maintain, no matter if they deserve it or not. They want
our peaceful and clean neighborhoods, our law and order, our technology and science, our school
systems, our inventions, the jobs we create, the food we grow, the transportation we invent,
the entertainment we provide Blacks hate us but can't live without us. That's why they demand
that we take care of them and give them special rights and privileges that we don't grant
ourselves, just to compensate for their inability at living in a modern and
technologically-advanced civilization.
Some groups succeed all the time, everywhere. Some have never succeeded anywhere.
Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced race; but they never
developed at all and had to be domesticated by Whites.
National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations:
Just week we had a White sub-Saharan African (Elon Musk) launch a spacecraft while Black
sub-Saharan Africans destroyed several cities.
Name a civilization (or even a written language) ever created by Blacks.
Name a single contribution from sub-Saharan Africans to the world.
The simple fact is, everything Blacks have was given to them by Whites.
Blacks are the only race never to have civilized. They were removed from the jungle just 250
years ago.
Blacks can only achieve because they have White admixture or because they reside in White
societies. Too few of them are smart enough to even build sufficient infrastructure in Africa
to allow the Black intellectual elite to achieve.
Slavery was the best thing to happen to Blacks, it was essentially a rescue mission by a
free cruise. Being a slave was actually a good career move for a Black African -- as it still
would be today. An enslaved Black in any non-Black country has a higher standard of living than
a free Black living among his own kind.
After defeating George Foreman for the heavyweight boxing title in Zaire (now Congo),
Muhammad Ali returned to the United States where he was asked by a reporter, "Champ, what did
you think of Africa?" Ali replied, "Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat."
Blacks are incapable of creating a civilization of their own. Blacks can only achieve
because they have White admixture or because they reside in White societies. Everything Blacks
have was given to them by Whites.
Criminally insane Floyd killed himself. His chosen lifestyle could only lead to a bad end
sooner or later. He shouldn't even have been out on the street after his armed home invasion
conviction. It was the misfortune of the police to have had to deal with this drugged-up thug
at the point he was going to expire due to drugs and eroded health due to years long drug use.
He was a large, tough looking criminal that one had to be careful in dealing with. This is the
'hero' of the moment, one of the scummiest people one could ever meet.
@chuckywiz
The Jewish MSM always ignores non-black victims of police misconduct. They made a collective
decision to do that following the mild uproar over Ruby Ridge and the Waco massacre of the
Branch Davidians. Today the Narrative is all about white oppressors and black victims.
It is economic disparity and hopelessness, stupid, and that is what the pundits are
avoiding purposely.
We can't read minds, so you could possibly be right. But in the visible world toppling
statues of white men and various displays of guilt-mongering seem to be taking precedence over
any racially neutral economic demands.
Muddy the water. Now we know why they hate us. Now we know why posters at this site and Zero
Hedge are considered white trash. Science is unacceptable when lefties use it to promote global
warming or the Nazis use it to lock down our society, but when it can be manipulated to try and
prove dirty cops innocent then it's okay. What's to conclude? Giant Echo Chamber! The Left has
it to keep their ignorant followers in line. The Right has it as well. Everyone preaching to
their audience and no one really worried too much about truth.
This is an excellent site. It's a shame that it feels a need to blame EVERYTHING on Jews or
Socialists or whatever the rednecks have been brainwashed to fear. The site simply hurts its
credibility doing this. Not much better than Left wing groups and that's one serious Freak
Show!
They riot because they are sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–
no, they're rioting because blacks and browns don't have academic and economic parity with
whites, and the ((universities)) have instructed their charges that there's no such thing as
racial differences, and so that means all the academic and economic discrepancies between white
and black, and the over-representation of blacks in the criminal justice system, are all a
direct consequence of lingering, "systemic" white racism in America.
That's why they're rioting. The Floyd death was simply the perfect metaphor for
America's 'racism', crystalized down to nine minutes of video.
The video was simply the catalyst, for a mindset that's been foisted by the ((universities))
and ((media)) for many decades now.
We're seeing what they've wanted all along. White people transformed into Palestinians,
treated as second class citizens. Affirmative action, and now free health care ONLY for blacks
in Kentucky.
White people will pay the taxes, but not get the benefits, because they're racists and
anti-Semites, and like the Palestinians (terrorists) they don't deserve any rights.
That's what this is all about. The 21st century is to be like the 20th, a Jewish
supremacist orgy of racial hatred unleashed.
I don't understand why they held him down so long. It seems as if they wanted to wait until
the criminal stopped tensing himself, which could be an indicator of continued resistance.
Maybe they felt if they eased up, he'd jump up and fight them as the guy in Atlanta did.
The Atlanta cops are going to get lynched. That's not justice.
@RobbieSmith
Ali spoke a lot of truth and the only reason the counterculture adopted him is because of his
stance against "Whitey" or what they thought was his stance against "Whitey." I do not blame
Ali for not wanting to fight for America in the Vietnam War. When Ali grew up, Blacks were
indeed second class citizens, far from it now, they have their asses kissed 24/7. Ali was about
Blacks pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, and was a hardcore SEPARATIST. Ali actually had
more than a touch of Irish blood in him. I wish more Blacks did indeed belong to the NOI like
Ali, I think we would have less crime and they would stay to themselves.
George Floyd was an unhealthy man. He wasn't an angel. He wasn't even a decent citizen. He was
a piece of shit.
But he didn't die of an overdose.
He died from a cop burying his knee on his neck for almost 10 minutes. Already in horrible
shape with breathing problems, his body wasn't able to handle it.
Floyd was pleading for him to get off his neck. He was asking for his mother. C'mon people.
Chauvin was heartless and ignorant. All he had to do was get off Floyd's neck. He wasn't a
threat.
Chauvin had a serious lapse in judgement. So did Floyd. He wouldn't have been in that
position in the first place. We can always argue that Floyd was a piece of shit. Maybe he was,
but he didn't have to die like that. Who in this comment section is so perfect to judge?
Chauvin has his own issues. He isn't a murderer either. Ignorant and callous, yes. Deserving
of jail time. I don't think so. Therapy and retirement form the police force? Absolutely.
1 Blacks can newer be civilized.
2 Blacks will never trust white people.
3 Whatever whites will do. Blacks will never be satisfied until they will have all and
permanent administrative power.
It was the liberal Democratic governors who were the worst 'lock-down' "Nazis", but to a
dishonest, agenda-driven liar like you, the truth is only something to bastardize to your own
hatred-consumed agenda.
EVERYTHING on Jews or Socialists or whatever the rednecks have been brainwashed to
fear.
Yea, it's not like thousands of those rednecks haven't given their lives in the last two
decades fighting the Eternal Wars for Israel, now is it? But that's a price we should all pay
for what was done on (((9/11))), huh?
The entire debate is moot at this point. Floyd is dead. The puppeteers have their "Crisis". The
mob is still out there. Thought crime is the new passion. Negroes can do nothing wrong. When
they do, it is my fault because I am white. Up is down, down is up, etc. The big question is
what lies ahead.
This was all manufactured to cover the real truth about a collapsing economic system which will
devastate nations and economies all over the world. When it hits(my bet is before 2021),
nothing else will matter. Here in Amerika, the Sheeple, Normies, and Cucks will go bat-s ** t
crazy. It will be Bosnia times Rwanda times Venezuela, times The Stand. Plan accordingly. Bleib
ubrig. Proverbs 27:12.
All this hysteria over one dead black thug and utter silence about far more tragic/innocent
victims(often at the hands of black thugs) suggest that the 'systemic racism' is in favor of
blacks.
It's like US's favoritism for Zionists over Palestinians, Iranians, and Arabs.
We hear endless yammering about 'antisemitism' and 'white supremacism', but US is
pathologically philosemitic and serving Jewish Supremacism 24/7.
BTW. it will be funny when a black guy wearing a Floyd t-shirt ends up dead at the hands of
another black.
@Anonymous
IF this whole incident is REAL, and believe me, nowadays I have a hard time believing anything
we see in the media or read is REAL, I have to say the cop was wrong and does deserve to do
time. Whatever the guy died from, people in the crowd told Chauvin over and over that Floyd
wasn't moving. The other cops should have pulled Chauvin off as well. The case in Atlanta is
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, however. IMO, Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter and quite possibly second
degree murder, but that one would be hard to prove. BUT the question must be ASKED ONCE AGAIN,
how or why did it come to this, WHY didn't George Floyd COMPLY with officer's orders? Floyd
would still be alive IF he had JUST COMPLIED with the cops. What is it about complying with an
officer's orders do Blacks not understand? A couple months ago a man was killed right up the
street from me because he attacked an officer with a knife. The officer responded to a domestic
dispute and the man STUPIDLY charged an armed cop with a knife and was shot dead. White cop,
and white perp so that was the end of story.
@Ficino
Covid-19 attacks cells with ACE-2 enzyme receptors. They are present in the lungs, heart,
intestine, blood vessels, and kidneys. Many people infected with Covid-19 suffer more damage in
these organs than in the lungs. People think they will recover quickly from this virus like
another cold (two of the cold strains are actually coronoviruses) or flu viruses, but it's
damage to the organs is more severe. It leaves them vulnerable to next year's covid-20, where
they will now have "preexisting health conditions."
May 27, 2020 New video shows Minneapolis police arrest of George Floyd before death
Four white officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been fired from the
Minneapolis Police Department, but Mayor Jacob Frey is saying that one of the officers should
be arrested for pressing his knee on Floyd's neck.
Dr. Vincent Di Maio estimated that Excited Delirium Syndrome kills 800 people every
year in police altercations because the victims "are just overexciting [their] heart from
the drugs and from the struggle.
So that is nearly 2,000 civilians a year that die in interactions with police basically the
Wild West
As a result, incompetence that would otherwise have remained harmless often becomes
dangerous, especially as incompetent people with good intentions rarely suffer the qualms of
conscience that sometimes inhibit the doings of competent people with bad intentions.
Good intentions were cobbling his way to disaster. – Old German saying. –
I like Dietrich Doerner – as a social scientist and as a humble man (a Social Democratic
leftie from the days before the left grew "regressive" (Dave Rubin).
Floyd's condition is irrelevant. If I have the facts straight Floyd was handcuffed and loaded
inside the police car. For reasons that are unclear he ends up face down on the asphalt with 4
dudes sitting on top of him. For me, without an amazing explanation all four should never have
been police officers. His death makes it worse but the inexplicable part is why he was on the
pavement being crushed.
@obwandiyag
Are you really going to share "a couple thousand" murders by police with us? Ok, I'll bite.
Send them to us in short installments of 3 or 4 hundred, just so we can keep up.
@Cranberries
RE: Might help for someone to explain this calculation, since simply summing the fentanyl and
norfentanyl concentrations gives 16.6, not 20.6. Cranberries comment #6.
I read somewhere that another fentanyl moiety was also detected in George Floyd's autopsy
blood. That may explain the discrepancy.
I really hate saying it but you could have a video of St.George shooting up minutes before his
encounter with Minneapolis' finest and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The Church of the
Perpetually Aggrieved have their martyr and will not let trivial things like truth get in the
way.
When I'm feeling particularly cynical and want to irritate the Missus I will say something
like, "Yeah, that was pretty bad but he probably did something we don't know about. So it all
evens out in the end."
@vot
tak Oh "prejudiced " against a particular group, is that the same thing as "racist" now"?
Does "racist " mean anything other than White? The word "prejudice " means to "pre-judge", what
if someone judges a person or group after getting to know them very well? What if I find I love
all people except Tibetans, am I a "racist "? For you kooks, I am if I'm White. So I guess
that's a "dumb question", since I'm pretty Pale
Videos and photos are very poor evidence because they only raise an emotional
response.
This is fact is usually overlooked. I still don't really grasp, why that is. But people seem
to lack – media education, or self-reflective self-distancing concerning the difference
between being an ey-witness and witnessing a video about an event. – Maybe Marshal
McLuhan is one reason that the video-deception is not being noticed for what it is: a major
source of self-deception because he made media-reflection trendy and at the same time
clueless.
This seems at first sight like a rather dismal academic distinction – until it becomes
crucial to make it, like in this case.
By now I might even be boring some readers of Unz.com by insisting on the following factual truth: Tom Wolfe showed in
pristine detail, just how this video deception, as you might call it, works in his (sigh, I'll
repeat this esthetic fact too now for the umpteenth time) – Tom Wolfe was able to show
how this video-deception plays out in his excellent novel Back to Blood .
PS
It might be not accidental, that Tom Wolfe did have a close look at Marshal McLuhan's ideas and
did write quite a bit about it, long before he started to work at Back to Blood .
– Fruits take their time until they're ripe, it seems.
What is it about complying with an officer's orders do Blacks not understand?
since I generally agree with you, and agree that this was likely staged, and that the other
cops should have intervened, and that Chauvin was obviously guilty of a callous disregard for
the man's life, (regardless of what he actually died of).. I agree with that all.
But I also understand why some people would try to flee the cops, (and being arrested and
having your life destroyed). It's a risk some people are willing to take. Like the guy who was
murdered by cop, lying in the snow (while being sadistically tortured by tazer). That sadistic
bitch tortured him to death because he ran from her, and defied her 'authority'.
I've known of too many cops in my lifetime who're drunk on their authority (power), and I
don't blame some people for running from them. If our laws say it's ok for cops to shoot such
people, then so be it, but if they're not allowed to shoot suspects running away, then if
that's murder, it's murder. No?
American cops are way too militarized and often murderous and unaccountable.
Absofuckinglutely.
But the Jews are turning this into a racial issue for their own agenda, whatever that is at
the moment. Perhaps simply as an amusement, to watch whitey squirm. (one of their favorite
pastimes ; )
I've never before seen such stupidity in the comments as is seen here today. Something strange
is going on. Many of you didn't read the article but have strong opinions. This isn't typical
of Unz readers. For some reason the Trolls are out in force on this one. Are you trying to
destroy this website's credibility?
@Emily
In certain quarters first responders do carry naloxone injectors for that contingency –
it takes half an hour of training.
Opioid LD50s are house numbers, but it´s a possibility.
Clearly no choking, but I wouldn´t rule out vagus shock.
Overall I´d say a measured exposé, but as many others already noted the
question is moot now.
@Biff
Given your confidence, can you tell us the exact number of "racists" married to people of other
races in America?
Your response should be within 2% of the actual number, and please also provide proof of the
"racism" on the part of the individual "racists" married to non Whites.
It is possible that floyd died of a drug overdose.
Not long after the video of Floyd s death came out a journalist from the Atlantic tried to
reenact it. He was unable to keep his balance for the amount of time.
This is possibly because the knee on the neck was not putting that much pressure on the
neck. It is possible that it was it was an even stance and the knee was applying slight or no
pressure.
@obwandiyag
They riot because the press whips them up into a frenzy. There is no shortage of blacks killed
by police or whites killed by police but this incident was spread to the 4 channels blacks are
capable of finding and drove them to riot.
If blacks don't like how cops treat them, then they should improve their savage behavior. Over
half of all homicides, over a third of cop killers, the majority who shoot at police, and far
more likely to resist arrest. When will blacks learn basic civilization, or do whites need to
hold their hand yet again?
Then, one officer pulled him out on the other side.
I assaume because he demanded to be let out due to a medical emergency. "I can't breathe!".
So they did and called an ambulance, which arrived a little later.
Facts:
1.Officer Derek Chauvin isn't in the video. The person purported to be Officer Chauvin is a
different person and that is quite clear from examining stills from the video and comparing
them to still photos of Officer Derek Chauvin.
2.One of the police vehicles had a licence plate that said 'POLICE'. This is absurd.
These are just two EXTREMELY obvious facts about the 'video' and there are dozens more fun
facts about this incident that really no other conclusion is possible IF a person is observant
AND honest about this video: it is a hoax. See: canucklaw.ca for an excellent and detailed breakdown.
Somehow, nearly everyone in 'professional media', aka as the presstitutes paid to lie by
their jewish billionaire employers, accepts this obvious HOAX as though it is legit and beyond
question.
Sounds familiar. Kind of like every mass shooting incident of the last 18 years which is to
say, ever since the HOAX of 9/11 the Jew Spew Propaganda arm just can't stop 'reporting' on
clearly faked events anytime they want to push the gun control issue, distract from another
issue or, worse still, to manipulate low IQ ghetto thugs, communists and assorted snow-flakes
into rioting which the Jew spew media then presents as 'peaceful protests'.
Anyone else sick of this never ending effort to manipulate the conversation away from the theft
of Trillions of dollars being presided over by Zion Don, his underlings Mnuchin, Jared Kushner
and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Last time I checked the unemployment number, that was previously 40 million, it seems to
have inched up to nearly 50 million. I expect to see continued efforts, each more desperate
than the last, as the elites fight for power, loot the treasury and race-bait. I don't know
when but I expect that at some point, barring any corruption or treason trials. elites will
start to be executed by vigilante groups. I just can't see these level of social pressure,
outright criminality and outrageous propaganda continuing to grow before average people become
frustrated and disenfranchised enough to act. Somewhere from among the silent majority of
rational Americans I expect to see a response to the last 2 decades of 'Global War of Terror'
insanity,financial looting of the present and future American people with a dash of race war
tossed in as a further insult to reason.
It amazes me that a community of largely dysfunctional blacks -mostl net takers from the
economic system-have the gall to use the term 'white privilege'. They don't pay taxes beyond
basic consumption, cause endless problems, avoid the infantry in every war, and now want
'reparations' after leeching off whites for over 150 years. It never ceases to amaze me how
effective propaganda is and how incredibly stupid the far left of the curve can be.
@obwandiyag
said:
"People don't riot over the specific police murder that sets it off. They riot because they are
sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–one of the ways being to murder them"
– Then Euro-whites should be the ones rioting.
– The number of Euro-whites killed by police are much, much higher than blacks, which is
remarkable considering that blacks do the vast amount crime.
– It is whites who are targeted by blacks, the stats don't lie. The Color of Crime : https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/
@Rurik
I agree with your post 100%. If Mr. Floyd had been White and the cops were White, this story
wouldn't have been talked about outside of Minneapolis. Speaking of Minneapolis, notice the JEW
MEDIA covered the story about the black thug throwing the white kid off a balcony in the Mall
Of America for about 3 minutes, and no suggestions of race at all. Yep, I don't buy the Pawn
Vanity narrative that 99% of cops are decent either. I can't think of any profession that could
make that claim. I am watching the telly as I type this and now the natives are engaging in a
multi-city "Juneteenth March." LMAO. I guess this will now become a national holiday. How
anyone can be fooled by this anymore is beyond stupid. Take care, my friend and enjoy the
comedy placed before us.
I've been on Derek Chauvin's side from the beginning. I knew it was just a race thing that the
media blew up and distorted, just like that kid wearing the MAGA cap with the native American
in DC, whose name I forgot. I hope that Derek Chauvin will be found not guilty and will sue the
mainstream media like that kid from Kentucky did. My only fear is that America is not an honest
country anymore and even if it is so blatantly obvious that Chauvin is innocent, that they will
have to find him guilty anyway.
I just can't stand it. I can't stand the thought of that happening. I mean, imagine that
ultimatum . serve justice or risk a city burning down. How can the masses be so misinformed?
Unaware and corrupted?
I took some notes today from E. Michael Jones, I watched his video, Sicut Judaeis Non, and
I/we have to really let what he said sink into our beings, in order that we can resist it and
not acquiesce. I can't go along with corruption and let injustice come to Derek Chauvin. The
truth has to be told.
My notes from E. Michael Jones:
"Jewish identity is the rejection of logos- political, moral, economical"
"Modernization is about everyone becoming Jewish."
"We have internalized the commands of our Jewish oppressors."
"We have a Jewish superego."
"Break free from the control of Jews in our minds."
And recently I've been watching Yuri Benzmenov again, we really have to understand the deep
psychological warfare, the hypnotic spell we've been under and break free from it.
@SOL
What else is new? Repeat offender was a drug addict. Drug addict died of an overdose. People
using lies about his death are not revolutionaries, they are just bandits, burglars and
vandals.
@anonymous1963
They'll get a fair trial and be found not guilty . setting off round #2 of rioting and looting
a couple of weeks before the november election
@Dan
Kurt Hey Dan, I thiiiiink .. norfentanyl is a metabolite of fentanyl, which means it has
been absorbed and processed by the body so the norfentanyl level would be indicative of a
higher/additional level of fentanyl intake, which when calculated backwards implies 20.6 total
@Rurik"no, they're rioting because blacks and browns don't have academic and economic parity with
whites, and the ((universities)) have instructed their charges that there's no such thing as
racial differences, and so that means all the academic and economic discrepancies between white
and black, and the over-representation of blacks in the criminal justice system, are all a
direct consequence of lingering, "systemic" white racism in America."
The persistent so-called "achievement gap" reveals the same racial IQ hierarchy on
standardized academic exams. The SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores on
the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and like IQ
scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching, or
practice. SAT preparation courses appear to work, but the gains are small -- on average, no
more than about 20 points per section.
[MORE]
Even after decades of focused attention to the achievement gap, it has remained unchanged.
Vanderbilt University researchers tracked the educational and occupational accomplishments
of more than 2,000 people who as part of a youth talent search and determined that scores on
the SAT correlate so highly with IQ that they are described as a "thinly disguised"
intelligence test.
Year White Black Gap
1985 1038 839 199
1990 1031 849 185
1996 1052 857 195
2000 1060 859 201
2005 1061 863 197
2010 1063 855 208
2015 1047 846 201
The new SAT introduced in 2017 was "designed to inspire and increase access to college" by
creating "a more equitable exam". The new SAT cannot be compared to previous results:
Year White Black Gap
2017 1118 941 177
2018 1123 946 177
The 2017 "college readiness" scores (ability to earn a C or higher in an entry-level course)
showed the stark racial achievement gap; Asians scored 70% college readiness, Whites 59%, and
Blacks only 20%.
SAT scores are highly correlated to intelligence test scores. The SAT correlates with an IQ
test at 0.86, almost the same as an IQ test correlates with itself. For this reason, we can
very reliably take SAT scores and convert them to IQ scores.
Results of psycho-metric IQ and scholastic tests are highly correlated. Rindermann &
Thompson (2013, p. 822)
In the 20 year period from 1994-2014 the Black-White difference increased on both the verbal
and math SATs despite targeted efforts to close the race gap. On the reading test, it rose from
.91 to .96 standard deviations. On the math test, it rose from .95 to 1.03 standard
deviations.
In fact, the truncated nature of the SAT math score distribution suggests that these race
gaps would be even larger given a harder exam with a bigger score variance. Note, for example,
how the Black score distribution is cut off at the bottom while the Asian score distribution is
cut off at the top. That suggests that a redesigned exam might feature even more pronounced
race gaps.
Percent by Race Reaching the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark:
15% = Black
24% = Non-White Hispanic
35% = Native American
53% = White
56% = Asian
Source: The College Board, 2014
PISA scores by race:
White Black Asian
531 433 525
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2015
NAEP Report Card: Mathematics
"In 2019, there were no significant changes in score disparities compared to 2017 across
most reported student groups in eighth-grade mathematics, with a few exceptions. For example,
among racial/ethnic groups, the average mathematics score at grade 8 for White students was 32
points higher than the average score for their Black peers in 2019 and 24 points higher than
the average mathematics score for eighth-grade Hispanic students. The 32-point
White–Black score difference in 2019 was not significantly different from the 32-point
score difference in 2017, the previous assessment year, nor the 33-point score gap in 1990, the
first assessment year."
Blacks and Whites with Equal Educational Attainment Differ in Cognitive Ability
Black and White Americans with the same formal level of education differ significantly in
their cognitive abilities. Specifically, within any given level of formal education Whites
consistently outperform Blacks. Moreover, this effect is so strong that Blacks often
underperform Whites who have lower levels of formal education than they do.
Consider the following data from the General Social Survey. This public data is frequently
used in social science research and contains a test of verbal intelligence as well as
measurements of participant's self-identified race and highest educational degree obtained.
Verbal intelligence tests correlate at around .75 with full-scale IQ and so this data can also
be taken as a fair measure of intelligence in general (Lynn, 1998). If we set the White mean
score on this test to 100 and the standard deviation to 15, we can come up with an "IQ" style
scale.
As can be seen, using this method Blacks with a graduate degree have a level of verbal
intelligence indistinguishable from that of Whites with a junior college degree. Blacks with a
four-year degree are roughly on par with Whites who never went to college at all.
IQ BY RACE AND HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED (1972 – 2014):
Highest Degree White IQ Black IQ Gap
High School Drop-out: 89 82 7
High School Diploma 98 90 8
Junior College Degree 102 95 7
Bachelor's Degree 108 100 8
Graduate Degree 113 102 11
This data is consistent with evidence from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) which
administered tests of cognitive ability to 26,000 US adults in 1992. These tests were designed
to measure how well people could take information and use it in a way which would help them
function in modern society.
Blacks are such poor academic achievers that the National Achievement Scholarship Program
was created with lower standards for Black candidates only, instead of the National Merit
Scholarship Program which is open to everyone else.
THE SMARTEST STUDENTS: The National Merit Scholarship Program was founded to identify and
honor scholastically talented American youth and to encourage them to develop their abilities
to the fullest.
BLACK STUDENTS ONLY: The National Achievement Scholarship Program was initiated specifically
to identify academically promising Black American youth and encourage their pursuit of higher
education.
They are both measured on the PSAT.
Minimum score for National Achievement: 190
Minimum score for National Merit: 220
Roughly, PSAT x 10 = SAT (out of 2400)
The U.S. government's PACE examination, given to 100,000 university graduates who are
prospective professional or administrative civil-service employees each year, is passed with a
score of 70 or above by 58% of the Whites who take it but by only 12% of the Blacks. Among top
scorers the difference between Black and White performance is even more striking; 16% of the
White applicants make scores of 90 or above, while only one-fifth of one percent of a Black
applicants score as high as 90 -- a White-Black success ratio of 80/1. IQ differences become
more pronounced with greater g-loading.
Bill Gates, after pulling philanthropic funding from Common Core, "When disaggregated by
race, we see two Americas. One where White students perform along the lines of the best in the
world with achievement comparable to countries like Finland and Korea. And another America,
where Black and Latino students perform comparably to the students in the lowest performing
OECD countries, such as Chile and Greece."
Blacks score so poorly on academic exams that colleges give them 230 "race bonus" SAT points
to help them qualify for admission:
"Personal scores" are the new subterfuge for artificially assisting Blacks gain admission to
universities. Asian-American applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than
20% of the time only in the top academic index decile. By contrast, white applicants receive a
2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time in the top six deciles. Hispanics
receive such personal scores more than 20% of the time in the top seven deciles, and Blacks
receive such scores more than 20% of the time in the top eight deciles.
An otherwise identical applicant bearing an Asian male identity with a 25 percent chance of
admission would have a 32 percent chance of admission if he were White, a 77 percent chance of
admission if he were Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance of admission if he were Black.
@FB
"Police extrajudicial executions of civilians are over 1,000 EACH YEAR in the United States far
more than any other country in the world "
In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 Blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous,
according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 Black male victims of police
shootings as "unarmed." That classification masks assaults against officers and violent
resistance to arrest.
Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from Black
males than Black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times
more likely to be killed by a Black male than an unarmed Black male was to be killed by a
police officer.
From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896
offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over that 33-year period was 52% White, and 41%
Black. So, the 13% total Black population in the U.S. commits 41% of police murders.
Further, Black males have made up 42% of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they
are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of
the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers -- committed vastly and disproportionately
by Black males.
Nine unarmed Blacks were killed by police in 2019 (seven of whom physically assaulted the
officers), as opposed to 19 Whites, according to the Washington Post's database, but Blacks are
much more likely to have police encounters than Whites. In an average year, about 49 people are
killed by lightning in the US, according to the National Weather Service.
Every year, American police officers have about 370 million contacts with civilians. Most of
the time nothing happens, but 12 to 13 million times a year, the police make an arrest. How
often does this lead to the death of an unarmed Black person? We know the number thanks to a
detailed Washington Post database of every killing by the police. What is your guess as to the
number of unarmed Blacks killed by the police every year? One hundred? Three hundred? Last
year, the figure was nine.
That number is going down, not up. In 2015, police killed 38 unarmed Blacks. In 2017, 21.
What about White people? Last year, police killed 19 unarmed Whites, in addition to the 9
unarmed Blacks. We know the number of Black and White people arrested every year, so it is
possible to make an interesting calculation. The chances of being unarmed, arrested, and then
killed by the police are higher for Whites than for Blacks. For both races, it's very rare: One
out of 292,000 arrests for Blacks, and out of 283,000 arrests for Whites.
Since 2015, when the Post began tracking these numbers, the police have killed about 1,000
people a year. Every year, about one quarter of them are Black. This is about twice their share
of the population, which is 13 percent. Is this proof of police racism? No. The more likely
explanation is that Blacks are more likely than Whites to act in violent, aggressive ways that
give the police no choice but to shoot them. In 2018, the most recent year for which we have
statistics, Blacks accounted for 37 percent of all arrests for violent crimes, 54 percent of
all arrests for robbery, and 53 percent of arrests for murder. With so many Blacks involved in
this kind of violent crime, that Blacks should account for 25 percent of the people killed by
the police seem like a surprisingly low figure.
There is another perspective on police killings of civilians. Every year, criminals kill
about 120 to 150 police officers. And we know from this FBI table that every year, on average,
about 35 percent of officers are killed by Blacks. So, to repeat, Blacks are 13 percent of the
population and account for 25 percent of the people killed by police. But if police were
killing them in proportion to their threatening, violent, criminal behavior, they would be a
greater percentage of the people killed by the police.
Thank you for a thoughtful article. This reinforces my original thought that we should wait for
the results of the trial. Presumably the cop has a competent lawyer who will be able to review
and present the comprehensive evidence to a jury. Ideally the prosecuting attorney will also be
able to understand and present another side of the story. Ideally there will be a fair jury,
not a howling lynch mob, and not a group of retired cops. This system is certainly imperfect
but better than shoot from the hip opinions based on some seconds of video viewing.
Two weeks ago a senior Trump Administration official revealed that the president had decided
to withdraw
9,500 American soldiers from Germany and that the administration would also be capping
total U.S. military presence in that country at 25,000, which might involve more cuts depending
what is included in the numbers. The move was welcomed in some circles and strongly criticized
in others, but many observers were also bemused by the announcement, noting that Donald Trump
had previously ordered a reduction in force in Afghanistan and a complete withdrawal from
Syria, neither of which has actually been achieved. In Syria, troops were only moved from the
northern part of the country to the oil producing region in the south to protect the fields
from seizure by ISIS, while in Afghanistan the nineteen-year-long training mission and
infrastructure reconstruction continue.
In a somewhat related development, the Iraqi parliament has called for the removal of U.S.
troops from the country, a demand that has been rejected by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Put
it all together and it suggests that any announcement coming from the White House on ending
America's useless wars should be regarded with some skepticism.
The United States has its nearly 35,000 military personnel remaining in Germany as its
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949 to counter
Soviet forces in Eastern Europe in what was to become the Warsaw Pact. Both the Organization
and Pact were ostensibly defensive alliances and the U.S. active participation was intended to
demonstrate American resolve to come to the aid of Western Europe. Currently, 75 years after
the end of World War II and thirty years after the fall of communist governments in Eastern
Europe, NATO is an anachronism, kept going by the many statesmen and military establishments of
the various countries that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Since the
demise of the European communist regimes, NATO has found work in bombing Serbia, destroying
Libya and in helping in the unending task to train an Afghan army.
In spite of the clearly diminished threat in Europe, NATO has expanded to 30 members,
including most of the former communist states that made up the Warsaw Pact. The most recent
acquisition was Montenegro in 2016, which contributed 2,400 soldiers to the NATO force. That
expansion was carried out in spite of assurances given to the post-Soviet Russian government
that military encroachment would not take place. Currently, NATO continues to focus on the
threat from Moscow as its own viable raison d'être , with its deployments and training
exercises often taking place right up against Russia's borders.
Few really believe that the Russia, which has a GDP only the size of Italy's, intends or is
even capable of reestablishing anything like the old Soviet Union. But a vulnerable Russia is
nevertheless interested in maintaining an old-fashioned sphere of influence around its borders,
which explains the concern over developments in Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States.
Given the diminished threat level in Europe, the withdrawal of 9,500 soldiers should be
welcomed by all parties. Trump has been sending the not unreasonable message that if the
Europeans want more defense, they should pay for it themselves, though he has wrapped his
proposal in his usual insulting and derogatory language. A wealthy Germany currently spends
1.1% of GDP on its military, far less than the 2% that NATO has declared to be a target to meet
alliance commitments. That compares with the nearly 5% that the U.S. has been spending
globally, inclusive of intelligence and national security costs.
Fair enough for burden sharing, but the European concern is more focused on how Trump does
what he does. For example, he announced the downsizing without informing America's NATO
partners. The Germans were surprised and pushed back
immediately . Conservative politician Peter Beyer said "This is completely unacceptable,
especially since nobody in Washington thought about informing its NATO ally Germany in
advance," and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas regretted the planned withdrawal, describing
Berlin's relationship with the Washington as "complicated." Chancellor Angela Merkel was
reportedly shocked.
The timing of the decision has also been questioned, with many observers believing that
Trump deliberately staged the announcement to punish Merkel for refusing to attend a planned
G-7 Summit in the U.S. that the president had been trying to arrange. Merkel argued that
dealing with the consequences of the coronavirus made it difficult for her to leave home at the
present time and the G-7 planning never got off the ground, which angered Trump, who wanted to
demonstrate his global leadership in an election year.
Trump's behavior has real world consequences. The Canadians and Europeans regard him as a
joke, but a dangerous joke due to his impulsive decision making. He cannot be trusted and when
he says something he often contradicts himself on the next day. Arguably Donald Trump was
elected president on the margin of difference
provided by an anti-war vote after many Americans took seriously his pledge to end the
burgeoning overseas wars and bring the soldiers home. It all may have been a lie even as he was
saying it, but it was convincing at the time and a welcome antidote to Hillary the Hawk.
There will be costs associated with removing or relocating the troops in Germany, to include
constructing new bases somewhere else, hopefully in the United States, but the realization that
the soldiers are not really needed could lead to the downsizing of the U.S. military across the
board. That would be strongly resisted by the Pentagon, the defense industries and
Congress.
If Trump is serious about downsizing America's overseas commitments, the reduction in the
German force is a good first step, even if it was done for the wrong reasons. It would be even
better if he would force NATO into discussions about ending the alliance now that it is no
longer needed, which would mean that the remaining American soldiers in Europe could come
home.
The U.S. mission of global dominance has meant huge budget deficits and a national debt of
$26 trillion, which is likely unsustainable. Germany and other European nations, by way of
contrast, balance their government budgets every year. South Korea, which hosts 30,000 American
soldiers, is wealthy and far more powerful than its northern neighbor. The continued occupation
of Japan with 50,000 troops makes no sense even considering an increase in China's regional
power. Overall, the United States continues to have 170,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines based overseas in 150 countries and its military budget exceeds one trillion dollars
when everything is considered. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars may have cost as much as seven
trillion dollars given the fact that much of the money was borrowed and will have to be repaid
with interest.
It is past time for Donald Trump to make a bold move because the Democrats won't have the
backbone to rattle the status quo. End the foreign wars, shut down the overseas bases and bring
the soldiers home. Spend tax dollars to improve the lives of Americans, not to fight wars for
Saudis and Israelis. A simple formula for change, but sometimes simple is best.
People who post of Twitter are stupid by definition, but people who fire employees for
posting on Twitter are trying to replicate excesses of Stalinism (and, in way, McCarthysm) on a
farce level. As in Marx "history repeats: first as tragedy, the second as farce"
By classifying the (somewhat incorrect; Obama was elected not only because he was half black,
but also because he was half--CIA ;-) Twit below as the cry "fire" in crowded theater, we really
try to replay the atmosphere of Stalinist Russia on a new level.
Notable quotes:
"... Austin Symphony Trombonist Fired Over Racist Comments , The Violin Channel, June 1, 2020 ..."
Have you checked out the 1/2 black president swine flu H1N1, and EBOLA?
What has your 1/2 black president done for you??
The ONLY REASON he was elected was because he is 1/2 black.
People voted on racist principles, not on the real issues . The BLACKS are looting and
destroying their environment. They deserve what
they get. Playing the RACE CARD IS RACIST.
Symphony orchestra spokes-critter Anthony Corroa [ Email him
]announced the firing of Ms. Salas in the dreary schoolmarmish jargon of corporate wokeness:
This language is not reflective of who we are as an organization." And "there is no
place for hate within our organization."
The President of Russia Vladimir Putin has taken the opportunity of the 75th anniversary
of the end of World War II to describe the build-up to the war, the diplomatic and military
considerations Russia took into account during that time, and the results of the allies'
victory.
His essay was published in multiple languages on the Website of the Kremlin:
The part with the Russian view of the behavior of various nation in the late 1930s is most
interesting. But this passage, related to the graphic above, is also very relevant:
The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the
main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism.
...
This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on
Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission's task was to define a formula according
to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers.
The Commission concluded that "the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet
front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also
had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft." On the
whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the
Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army "ground up" 626 divisions of the
Axis states, of which 508 were German.
On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation:
"These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies
– troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put
together." Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote
that "it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine "
Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great
truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the
fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces
of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in
127, and the USA lost one in 320.
As a German and former officer who has read quite a bit about the war I agree with the
Russian view. It was the little acknowledged industrial power of the Soviet Union and the
remarkable dedication of the Red Army soldiers that defeated the German Wehrmacht.
At the end of his essay Putin defends the veto power of the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council. In his view it has prevented that another clash on a global
scale has happened since World War II ended. Putin rejects attempts to abolish that
system.
I have found no major flaw with the historic facts in the essay and recommend to read it
in full.
Posted by b at 17:07 UTC | Comments (22)
thanks for highlighting this b.... the graph at the top is very telling of how many people
remain fairly ignorant of the reality on the ground.. putins speech and text are well worth
the read... s and karlof1 posted a link on the open thread and some of us were talking about
it their.... i found putins comments on the UN especially interesting...
I wonder if the brainwashing going on in the usa about how bad the UN is, is another
example of americans being dumbed right down into believing the UN is useless? that is what
it looks like to me... some of us aren't buying that and i am glad to see putin make some
comments on that as well... thanks for highlighting this.. revisionist history seems to be a
speciality of some..
When I read here and in the article the quotes from Churchill and the "west" praising
Russia's conduct of the war against fascism I can't help but translate them into praise for
Hitler should he have won. British and US oligarchs were funding and supporting Hitler all
along, which is well documented. For the oligarchy it made little difference who won.
The strategy of the imperial oligarchy was to let all its potential competitors deplete
their resources then move in with its full power when the outcome had already been determined
and pray on their weakness. It worked as we see in the global imperial power of the Western
oligarchy as engineered by Roosevelt after the war which has ruled now for 75 years.
What Putin wrote already was common sense among historians, but it is good to see it becoming
more mainstream.
My theory about the USA trying to get the credit for defeating the Third Reich - even
though it has the victory against Japan (an empire that made the Third Reich look like Human
Rights lovers) - comes from the fact that the European Peninsula became the major theater of
the Cold War. The USA had then to create a narrative that could justify its supremacy over
Western Europe, and its attempts to "liberate" Eastern Europe.
Yes, the Korean War happened in the early 1950s, but Japan was secured, Soviet access to
warm water port in Asia was thus blocked and, after the Mao-Nixon pact of 1972, China (and
thus North Korea) was out of the Soviet sphere. That made the European Peninsula even more
important. Indeed, the threat of invading and occupying West Berlin was one of the greatest
leverages the Soviets had and used against the USA during the whole Cold War. This leverage
became even more pronounced after the Soviets successfully crushed the Hungarian
counter-revolution of 1956, which sobered up the CIA and the hampered the USG's ambitions on
absorbing Eastern Europe by propaganda and subversion warfare.
The most baffling news to me recently was when I found out that Poland invaded the CSSR
together with Hitler and occupied a part of the Czech Republic in March 1939 - and I went
through several decades of WW2 "education" just as everyone. Not even Wikipedia mentions the
Polish contribution to the invasion and occupation of the CSSR, which is very telling.
It sheds an entirely new light on the entire development right before WW2, in which Hitler
went all-in to give Poland something for the future return of Danzig. Poland took it, but
didn't realize that it was part of a deal, so Hitler activated Plan B. The process was
certainly aggressive and kicked the Czechs interests as a people/nation, but the overall plan
(I guess developed by Ribbentrop) makes a lot of sense. It is by far not irrational as it is
usually portrayed.
I read the article when it was posted (in full) on Southfront.
It is excellent. Detailed, accurate, insightful, as well as well composed and written.
I recommend that everyone who is able to do so read this article in its entirety.
I also fully agree with the position of Mr. Putin, as stated in his writing.
You are quite correct. All historians know that the role of the Soviet Union in the war was
decisive. When I was a child, growing up in British military circles, nobody troubled to deny
it, while the role of the United States was generally regarded as very minor.
I recall, passing through the Suez Canal on a troopship bound for Malaya, the immense
enthusiasm and loud cheering of the British troops for the crew of a Soviet destroyer,
parading on deck while at anchor in the sweetwater lake. It drove the senior officers mad but
the troops, mostly young working class conscripts, understood that the Red Army had saved
millions of British lives.
As b says, however, by far the most interesting part of Putin's summary is that outlining the
facts of the gyrating foreign policies of the United Kingdom in the 1930s.
Again most of what Putin relates is well known to honest historians. It used to be well
known-thanks largely to the work of the Left- that the well understood strategy of the
Tories, and most of the US business class, was to support a German invasion of the Soviet
Union. Which is why the Nazi economy rested so heavily on US capital- it was expected to pay
political as well as financial dividends by erasing the Communist threat (and, by implication
that of socialism too).
I saw not a single error in Putin's history. It coincides precisely with the analysis I
learned, as a young socialist, from German emigres. One of them, Hans Hess, who was a long
time director of an Art Gallery in the north of England, told us that he, at the time in
Paris, had greeted the news of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with relief. He understood that it
meant that the policy of appeasement had failed, and that the Soviet Union would survive and
prevail.
It needs to be understood that, before the US Cold War, based on the support it got from the
isolationist, ultra right wing Republicans who had never really warmed to the World War, the
view that Putin gives was widely shared by all 'patriotic' (anti collaborationist) political
currents in western Europe. The contempt with which Baldwin, Chamberlain and their ilk were
regarded in the UK used to be enormous- they were held to be little short of traitors.
Seventy years later they and their US equivalents, the Vichy supporters in France and Nazi
collaborators from all over Europe (including Mussolini's political heirs) dominate European
politics.
It is a badge of honour for Russians to be hated by these scum.
The Soviet Union put together a 20 part documentary, The Unknown War, with the assistance of
the U.S in 1978 to tell their part of the story. Mandatory watching for any history buffs, or
those who want to expand their horizons. An incredible 30 hours of footage from the Soviet
perspective. Narrated by Burt Lancaster.
When I was a history student, undergrad and grad, at University of Illinois in 1970s,
students of European history were taught exactly Putin's view. Students of American history
were taught the Hollywood view. The American side of the History department viewed the entire
faculty and student body on the European side as a pack of disloyal Communists. The European
side saw the American side as exactly what they were - schoolteachers and future
schoolteachers. Most of my old profs were glad to get out. Any profs known since retired
early as precisely this issue made the job impossible. Of course at U of I there was and
remains a large contingent of Eastern European descendants of Nazi collaborators who are very
vocal and completely immune to criticism. A protected class. Open display of Nazi regalia,
memorabilia, salutes, songs were always 100% approved because these are after all the victims
of Soviet oppression.
While it is true that numerous folks among the Anglo-American elites would be okay with a
German victory (particularly if it didn't involve the trashing of their own imperial
regimes), Churchill wasn't one of them. For all his odious aspects, this was a defining
characteristic of his as a British nationalist: he wouldn't countenance any compromise with
the Axis. In fact, it is safe to say that he played a very important role in keeping Britain
in the war and not making any sort of peace with Germany after the fall of France.
On the other hand, it is an absolute truth that Hitler and Mussolini were highly respected
among western capitalists who supported the military reinvigoration of the Third Reich.
Mussolini was treated with more favour, but Hitler was also seen positively, not least for
his racialist and racist views which coincided with those of the official Anglo-sphere.
It is interesting to see in Putin's essay confirmation that the roots of WW11 were the greedy
and inhumane attitudes of France and The UK to German reparations for WWI. Today we have The
UK France and the USA losing the war in Syria and now imposing sanctions on the Syrian
people. In Libya they have created chaos and the same bunch of war criminals do f--- all to
assist the country. I have read elsewhere that Churchill could have stopped WWII much earlier
and saved many lives' including the thousands killed in the Dresden firebombing, but wanted a
complete surrender from Germany rather than a conditional one and that the Japanese were
ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped as the Soviet Army was poised to
invade Japan after cleaning up China. The USA needed a quick resolution and an extravagant
display of power to establish its global supremacy however so dropped the bombs anyway
killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
All facts that are glossed over by most western publications.
It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary celebrations of
the end of WWII in Moscow.
I am very grateful that at least one of the current super-powers is led by the humane,
diplomatic, non-empire building Vladimir Putin.
Victor@17, you cannot be blamed for wanting to add to the essay important details, but I
don't think the charge of revisionism is warranted. In the essay, Putin says this:
"...Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the
crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions.
In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor
understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them..."
That's a pretty strong statement. Putin is making clear his essay focuses on
misrepresented aspects of Russia's involvement in the war. This is not a blanket endorsement
of all that took place, but a template for careful study of events and increased
understanding as documents pertaining to them become available.
As an American student with a class in "Soviet History" in the 1960's during the Cold War,
what President Putin said about the War is what I was taught at the time.
I don't know when things changed. Probably just Americans lack of knowledge of history and
belief in their exceptionalism.
Broad and sweeping sanctions inevitably harm the entire population of a targeted country,
and in many cases that is exactly what they are meant to do.
When they are joined to maximalist policy goals, they are guaranteed to fail according to
the standards of their supporters. The ongoing failure of sanctions is then cited as a reason
to expand them and make them even more obnoxious. A piece of sanctions legislation targeting
Syria is a case in point. The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act has greatly expanded the
scope and reach of U.S. sanctions on the Syrian economy, and the first sanctions authorized by
the law come into force
this week . That practically guarantees imposing further hardship and deprivation on a
country that has already been ravaged by eight years of conflict. It is just the latest piece
of evidence that the U.S. needs to renounce its use of broad sanctions.
In their recent
analysis of the legislation, Basma Alloush and Alex Simon explain how the Caesar Act will
likely stifle Syria's economic recovery, interfere with humanitarian relief and reconstruction
efforts, and drive away businesses that might be willing to invest in the country. They
emphasize the legislation's "vast scope" as a reason to fear that it will simply add to the
burdens that the civilian population has had to bear:
Within that continuum, the Caesar Act's novelty lies in its vast scope. Previous measures
have targeted a mix of individual actors and selected sectors, and have applied almost
exclusively to Syrian and American entities. By contrast, the Caesar Act promises to slap
so-called "secondary sanctions" onto businesses of any nationality that are found transacting
with sanctioned actors in multiple sectors of Syria's economy -- notably energy and
construction. As such, the bill aims to deepen Damascus' isolation by deterring investment by
any businesses from Beirut to Dubai to Beijing.
Sanctions are not the primary cause of Syrians' hardships, and the Syrian government bears
significant responsibility for the wreckage of the economy. Even so, further strangling the
Syrian economy now will succeed only in starving the country of investment and commerce for no
real purpose. Sanctions will fuel inflation and make even basic necessities unaffordable for
millions of people. The U.S. can choose to assist the people of Syria, or it can choose to
grind them down even more. The Caesar Act is the latter. The people of Syria are being made to
suffer more in the vain attempt to weaken the Syrian government.
The Caesar Act's destructive effects won't be limited just to Syria, but are already
spilling over into Lebanon:
The ramifications of Caesar are rippling through Beirut, where traders retain lucrative
ties to Syrian officials that are barely keeping Lebanese state revenues ticking over.
"This is a disaster for the [Lebanese] government, said one Lebanese banker. "They will
sanction Lebanese traders and banks. Our currency will plunge as far as theirs. One of the
few places we can trade is Damascus. If that's shut down, we're doomed."
Like any other coercive intervention, sanctions have destabilizing, negative consequences
for the targeted country and all of its neighbors.
The Syria example is a reminder that sanctions are easy to apply but remarkably difficult to
remove later. It is politically advantageous for politicians to endorse sanctions bills because
it allows them to claim that they are being "tough" on some despised foreign leader, and no one
will hold them accountable for the destructive effects of sanctions in the years that follow.
There is usually much more political risk in opposing sanctions or calling for their removal,
because this is wrongly cast as "rewarding" another government's abuses. It is also often the
case that sanctions legislation includes conditions for sanctions relief that are so ambitious
and far-fetched that they will never be met. Alloush and Simon comment on some of the
unrealistic conditions contained in the Caesar Act:
As a result, the Caesar Act's true force may lie less in its immediate impact and more in
its long-term implications. The law's five-year sunset clause means that these measures are
likely to stick until 2025 -- possibly longer. In principle, the president could suspend the
sanctions sooner if Damascus and its allies fulfill a set of seven criteria. However, several
requirements -- including "releasing all political prisoners" and "taking verifiable steps to
establish meaningful accountability" -- are so unrealistic as to render this stipulation
meaningless.
The U.S. tends to impose many overlapping and reinforcing sets of sanctions on the same
governments, and that makes it even less likely that all sanctions on a government will ever be
lifted. As a result, sanctions on another country become a permanent fixture of their economy,
and the targeted government has no incentive to make any concessions on any issue. Writing at
the Lawfare website, Edward Fishman makes an excellent
observation about how sanctions pile up and then lead to effective policies of regime
change:
The static nature of sanctions not only makes them toothless; it also produces harmful
effects on U.S. policy. Because sanctions are rarely lifted, they tend to accumulate over
time at a steady, if intermittent, pace. As sanctions snowball, so do their objectives,
worsening the convoluted problem outlined above. The net result is that, almost by default,
nearly every sanctions program eventually aims for regime change. (It's hardly surprising
that one of the only times America has ended a sanctions program in recent history -- when
President Obama did so with respect to Burma in 2016 -- came after Aung San Suu Kyi's
National League of Democracy won a majority of seats in Burma's parliament.) With a tortuous
web of sanctions and policy objectives, most adversary regimes rightly assess that the only
way out of sanctions is to call it quits. But no government will commit political suicide to
undo sanctions.
When the U.S. seeks major changes in regime behavior or the overthrow of the regime through
sanctions, the policy is most likely to fail. But it will also necessarily harm the civilian
population in the meantime. Fishman cuts to the heart of the matter:
Policymakers and experts need to disabuse themselves of shibboleths that sanctions are
precisely targeted at government officials and spare civilian populations and accept that
America's most ambitious sanctions programs aim to cause systemic economic damage -- which,
by definition, is felt by most if not all members of society.
Sanctions advocates often cast themselves as supporters and allies of the people in the
country whose economy they want to destroy. This has never been credible, and it is long past
time that we stop tolerating these deceptions. If you seek to ruin another country's economy,
you seek the ruin of the people living there. Sanctions advocates should be held responsible
for the results of the policies they promote.
We have seen this story unfold many times over the last three decades. First, the U.S.
imposes sanctions to punish a government for its behavior. Then the government's leadership and
its cronies use the economic difficulties created by the sanctions to enrich themselves and buy
loyalty by controlling access to limited goods. Legitimate commerce is strangled, smuggling
flourishes, and the government and its cronies exploit that to their advantage as well.
Meanwhile humanitarian organizations that try to help the people find themselves bogged down in
paperwork and struggling to get the simplest items approved, and humanitarian relief ends up
being delayed or blocked all together. Financial transactions with the outside world become all
but impossible, and essential humanitarian goods can't be brought into the country. Collective
punishment strikes down the poor and infirm, and it leaves the well-connected and corrupt to
prosper. The Caesar Act sanctions seem very likely to repeat the same pattern. Alloush and
Simon add:
The impact will go far beyond deterring individual companies, trickling down to ordinary
Syrians seeking to get on with their lives. For instance, the Caesar Act targets Syria's
construction sector, which has sparked concerns among aid organizations working to support
small-scale infrastructural rehabilitation -- from fixing up damaged water networks to
helping rebuild bombed-out schools or apartments.
The U.S. increasingly relies on a coercive policy that does a terrible job of advancing
American interests, but it excels at impoverishing and killing ordinary people in many
countries around the world. Economic sanctions have been a favorite tool for politicians and
policymakers to use against many governments in response to a range of undesirable activities,
because it seems to offer a low-cost option that allows the U.S. to "do something." The record
clearly shows that they fail on their own terms, and they end up costing much more than their
advocates will ever admit. It would be bad enough if this were simply a matter of repeating the
same error over and over and never learning anything, but the consequences of sanctions have
been devastating for millions and fatal for tens of thousands of people.
Hurting the weakest and most vulnerable people is what sanctions usually do. The broader the
sanctions are, the more harm they do to innocent people. Instead of trying to "fix" or reform
how the U.S. uses tools of economic warfare, our government should abandon the use of broad,
sectoral sanctions entirely. Just as we have sought to limit and restrict the use of force to
reduce the harm to civilians in warfare, we need to limit and restrict the use of economic
coercion when it comes to sanctioning other governments. Rather than refining tools of
collective punishment, the U.S. should stop trying to police the behavior of other states.
In their struggle with China the USA neocons (MIC stooges who preach the Full Spectrum
Dominance doctrine, while being personally despicable cowards) now needs Russia more then Russia
needs the USA neocons. Staring from Yugoslavia bombing, the USA neocons completely destroyed post
1991 good will from Russian side, and need to face consequences. Meanwhile the USA MIC which
controls the USA foreign policy will sooner or later bankrupt the country and already created
threats to the use of dollar as the major reserve currency. Appetites of MIC are unlikely to be
tamed. In this sense the USA might well be already doomed.
Any paper that claims that "regardless of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election,
Russia will remain a contentious issue in U.S. domestic politics at least for the next several
years and certainly longer if Moscow continues to interfere in U.S. elections" is written by
idiots or MIC stooges and as such represent blatant propaganda efforts, which does not deserve to
be read.
... There are no signs that the relationship will improve in the near future.
The U.S. foreign policy community views Russia as a hostile actor, and this view is likely
to prevail for the foreseeable future. U.S. policymakers resent Russia's global activism and
are increasingly concerned about its partnership with China. Likewise, Moscow's foreign policy
community sees the United States as an aggressive, unilateral, hostile actor and a threat to
Russia's domestic stability and claim to a prominent position on the world stage
... Over the next decade, the accumulated grievances on both sides; profound differences in
interests, values, and conceptions of global order; and domestic political conditions all but
rule out any notions of a sustainable partnership, a reset, or a significant improvement in
U.S.-Russian ties. In other words, the two countries will remain strategic competitors. How
long they maintain this largely adversarial relationship -- and how U.S.-Russian relations will
evolve over the next decade -- will depend primarily on global geopolitical trends and on
domestic factors in each country that will influence their foreign policy priorities.
... If Trump is reelected, he will continue to eschew multilateralism and U.S. alliance
relationships in favor of bilateral transactional diplomacy in the service of his more
unilateral, nationalist America First agenda. If former vice president Joe Biden is elected, it
is likely that, rhetorical deference toward a renewed liberal order notwithstanding, domestic
and external constraints on U.S. power will limit the scope of American ambitions and appetite
for transformational solutions to pressing international challenges. It will also take some
time for a Biden administration to repair the damage to America's credibility and reputation
caused by its predecessor. Washington will continue to struggle to forge a domestic consensus
to commit major resources for ambitious foreign policy undertakings. Further, as poll after
poll has shown, the majority of the American public, weary of foreign commitments, wants its
leaders to focus more on domestic challenges that have a significant negative impact on the
quality of life of many Americans. 3 This will be especially true in an era that
could be marked by the threat of more pandemics and the need to deal with the economic,
political, and social problems they will engender.
As a consequence of these factors, the next few years and beyond will likely see the United
States playing a less active and influential role in global affairs, though to what degree will
depend in part on who is president. America's unipolar moment has passed; U.S. alliances are
badly frayed; and the international system has been transitioning to a much more complicated,
uncertain, and confusing global order, in which other global and major regional powers are
rebalancing. The established Cold War–era and post–Cold War concepts of U.S.
leadership, exceptionalism, and indispensability have yet to fully adjust to these new
realities. The U.S.-Russian relationship is likely to remain contentious because Washington
will continue to view Moscow's defense of what it sees as its legitimate interests -- and
Russian activism more generally -- as evidence that Russia remains hostile to U.S. leadership
of the rules-based international order; to U.S.-fashioned solutions to global problems; and to
the United States' enduring commitment to national sovereignty, independence, and adherence to
democratic norms.
... The third trigger would be the emergence, after Putin leaves the scene, of a more
reckless or less skillful leader, resulting in a more precarious and dangerous
relationship.
... A more sober acknowledgment of Russian leaders' anxiety about their own political
staying power, as well as Moscow's enduring interests in these neighboring countries, combined
with less ambitious U.S. rhetoric and greater openness to dialogue with Russia -- none of which
was evident during the 2013–2014 Ukraine crisis -- could lead to a better outcome for all
concerned.
... Resuming a productive U.S.-Russian strategic dialogue will be difficult
... Avoiding a conflict between the United States and Russia, and especially nuclear war,
should be the paramount U.S. priority in the bilateral relationship. Arguably, there is a much
greater risk of an inadvertent war between the two countries arising from an accident or
miscalculations and miscommunications -- for example, a military reaction to a false warning of
attack -- than from a premeditated attack.
... In East Asia, Washington has witnessed the steady growth of the Russian-Chinese
partnership. A number of U.S. policies have driven the two countries closer together, including
American military interventions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Libya, which both countries viewed as
regime change, democracy promotion, and support for color revolutions. Presently, Russia is
helping China augment its power by providing advanced weapons and military technology and
diplomatic support for China's positions on North Korea and the South China Sea. By signing on
to an asymmetric partnership with Beijing, Moscow is adjusting to the reality of the continued
accumulation of Chinese power in Asia. Russia is poised to become increasingly dependent on
China as a source of technology and investments. At a minimum, Washington should avoid policies
that drive the two countries closer together in ways that are counterproductive to U.S.
interests.
... the economies of the two countries are not complementary, and indeed there is
competition in exports for oil, gas, agricultural products, and arms. As long as this situation
persists, it will be extremely difficult to expand U.S.-Russian trade; cooperation on joint
economic ventures involving technology, energy, and space; and American foreign direct
investment in Russia.
They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the
person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone
call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning
America.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific
time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"
The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be
better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.
One of the most disturbing aspects of American foreign policy since 9/11 has been the
assumption that decisions made by the United States are binding on the rest of the world, best
exemplified by President George W. Bush's warning that "there was a new sheriff in town." Apart
from time of war, no other nation has ever sought to prevent other nations from trading with
each other, nor has any government sought to punish foreigners using sanctions with the cynical
arrogance demonstrated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The United States uniquely seeks to
penalize other sovereign countries for alleged crimes that did not occur in the U.S. and that
did not involve American citizens, while also insisting that all nations must comply with
whatever penalties are meted out by Washington. At the same time, it demonstrates its own
hypocrisy by claiming sovereign immunity whenever foreigners or even American citizens seek to
use the courts to hold it accountable for its many crimes.
The conceit by the United States that it is the acknowledged judge, jury and executioner in
policing the international community began in the post-World War 2 environment, when hubristic
American presidents began referring to themselves as "leaders of the free world." This pretense
received legislative and judicial backing with passage of the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA) as amended in 1992 plus subsequent related legislation, to
include the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA). The body of legislation
can be used to obtain civil judgments against alleged terrorists for attacks carried out
anywhere in the world and can be employed to punish governments, international organizations
and even corporations that are perceived to be supportive of terrorists, even indirectly or
unknowingly. Plaintiffs are able to sue for injuries to their "person, property, or business"
and have ten years to bring a claim.
Sometimes the connections and level of proof required by a U.S. court to take action are
tenuous, and that is being polite. Suits currently can claim secondary liability for third
parties, including banks and large corporations, under "material support" of terrorism
statutes. This includes "aiding and abetting" liability as well as providing "services" to any
group that the United States considers to be terrorist, even if the terrorist label is dubious
and/or if that support is inadvertent.
The ability to sue in American courts for redress of either real or imaginary crimes has led
to the creation of a lawfare culture in which lawyers representing a particular cause seek to
bankrupt an opponent through both legal expenses and damages. To no one's surprise, Israel is a
major litigator against entities that it disapproves of. The Israeli government has even
created and supports an organization called Shurat HaDin, which
describes on its website how it uses the law to bankrupt opponents.
The Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan has become the clearing house for
suing the pants off of any number of foreign governments and individuals with virtually no
requirement that the suit have any merit beyond claims of "terrorism." In February 2015,
a lawsuit initiated by Shurat HaDin led to the conviction of the Palestinian Authority and
the Palestine Liberation Organization of liability for terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000
and 2004. The New York Federal jury awarded damages of $218.5 million, but under a special
feature of the Anti-Terrorism Act the award was automatically tripled to $655.5 million. Shurat
HaDin claimed sanctimoniously that it was "bankrupting terror."
The
most recent legal victory for Israel and its friends occurred in a federal district court
in the District of Columbia on June 1 st , where Syria and Iran were held to be
liable for the killing of American citizens in Palestinian terrorist attacks that have taken
place in Israel. Judge Randolph D. Moss ruled that Americans wounded and killed in seven
attacks carried out by Palestinians inside the Jewish state were eligible for damages from Iran
and Syria because they provided "material support" to militant groups Hamas and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad. The court will at a future date determine the amount of the actual damages.
It should be observed that the alleged crime took place in a foreign country, Israel, and
the attribution of blame came from Israeli official sources. Also, there was no actual evidence
that Syria and Iran were in any way actively involved in planning or directly enabling the
claimed attacks, which is why the expression "material support," which is extremely elastic,
was used. In this case, both Damascus and Tehran are definitely guilty as charged in
recognizing and having contact with the Palestinian resistance organizations though it has
never been credibly asserted that they have any influence over their actions. Syria and Iran
were, in fact, not represented in the proceedings, a normal practice as neither country has
diplomatic representation in the U.S. and the chances of a fair hearing given the existing
legislation have proven to be remote.
And one might well ask if the legislation can be used against Israel, with American citizens
killed by the Israelis (Rachel Corrie, Furkan Dogan) being able to sue the Jewish state's
government for compensation and damages. Nope. U.S. courts have ruled in similar cases that
Israel's army and police are not terrorist organizations, nor do they materially support
terrorists, so the United States' judicial system has no jurisdiction to try them. That result
should surprise no one as the legislation was designed to specifically target Muslims and
Muslim groups.
In any event, the current court ruling which might total hundreds of millions of dollars
could prove to be difficult to collect due to the fact that both Syria and Iran have little in
the way of remaining assets in the U.S. In previous similar suits, most notably in June 2017, a
jury deliberated for one day before delivering a guilty verdict against two Iranian foundations
for violation of U.S. sanctions, allowing a federal court to authorize the U.S. government
seizure of a
skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan. It was the largest terrorism-related civil forfeiture in
United States history. The presiding judge decided to distribute proceeds from the building's
sale, nearly $1 billion, to the families of victims of terrorism, including
the September 11th attacks . The court ruled that Iran had some culpability for the 9/11
attacks solely based on its status as a State Department listed state sponsor of terrorism,
even though the court could not demonstrate that Iran was in any way directly involved.
A second
court case involved Syria, ruling that Damascus was liable for the targeting and killing of
an American journalist who was in an active war zone covering the shelling of a rebel held area
of Homs in 2012. The court awarded
$302.5 million to the family of the journalist, Marie Colvin. In her ruling, Judge Amy Berman
Jackson cited "Syria's longstanding policy of violence" seeking "to intimidate journalists" and
"suppress dissent." A so-called human rights group funded by the U.S. and other governments
called the Center for Justice and Accountability
based its argument, as in the case of Iran, on relying on the designation of Damascus as a
state sponsor of
terrorism . The judge believed that the evidence presented was "credible and
convincing."
Another American gift to international jurisprudence has been the Magnitsky Act of 2012, a
product of the feel-good enthusiasm of the Barack Obama Administration. It was based on a
narrative regarding what went on in Russia under the clueless Boris Yeltsin and his nationalist
successor Vladimir Putin that was peddled by one Bill Browder, who many believe to have been a
major player in the looting of the former Soviet Union. It was claimed by Browder and his
accomplices in the media that the Russian government had been complicit in the arrest, torture
and killing of one Sergei Magnitsky, an accountant turned whistleblower working for Browder.
Almost every aspect of the story has been challenged, but it was completely bought into by the
Congress and White House and led to sanctions on the Russians who were allegedly involved
despite Moscow's complaints that the U.S. had no legal right to interfere in its internal
affairs relating to a Russian citizen.
Worse still, the Magnitsky Act
has been broadened and is now the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2017.
It is being used to sanction and otherwise punish alleged "human rights abusers" in other
countries and has a very low bar for establishing credibility. It was most recently used in the
Jamal Khashoggi case, in which the U.S. sanctioned the alleged killers of the Saudi dissident
journalist even though no one had actually been arrested or convicted of any crime.
The long-established principle that Washington should respect the sovereignty of other
states even when it disagrees with their internal or foreign policies has effectively been
abandoned. And, as if things were not bad enough, some recent legislation virtually guarantees
that in the near future the United States will be doing still more to interfere in and
destabilize much of the world. Congress passed and President Trump
has signed the Elie Wiesel Genocide and
Atrocities Prevention Act , which seeks to improve Washington's response to mass killings.
The prevention of genocide and mass murder is now a part of American national security agenda.
There will be a Mass Atrocity Task Force and State Department officers will receive training to
sensitize them to impending genocide, though presumably the new program will not apply to the
Palestinians as the law's namesake never was troubled by their suppression and killing by the
state of Israel.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Iranian explosively formed penetrator IED killed 196 U.S. troops and wounded getting on
for a thousand in Iraq. What did they expect a pat on the back, America to forget all about
it?
As her writing shows Marie Colvin was sympathetic to all civilians being targeted
including Palestinian women being shot by Israeli backed militia snipers.
The long-established principle that Washington should respect the sovereignty of other
states even when it disagrees with their internal or foreign policies has effectively been
abandoned.
I think the Iranian government obviated any obligation for the US to abide by
international law and conventions, by seizing US Embassy personnel and using them as hostages
to influence US politics. Very successfully I might add. Iran only supports the Palestinians
in order to mitigate Arab Sunni loathing for the Persian Shia. It is self interested, unlike
Ms Colvin's reporting.
" At the same time, it demonstrates its own hypocrisy by claiming sovereign immunity
whenever foreigners or even American citizens seek to use the courts to hold it accountable
for its many crimes ."
This is all no more than "par for the course" if you understand the true nature of all
governments.
This "just" in:
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock: https://mises.org/library/our-enemy-state-4
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of
their innate criminal nature." Onebornfree: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/
"The state lies in all the tongues of good and evil, and whatever it says is lies, and
whatever it has, it has stolen, everything it is, is false, it bites with stolen teeth, and
it bites often, it is false down to its bowels."~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche,
If you never get to understand the true nature of all governments, then you are forever
doomed to complain about what it does, seems to me, Mr Giraldi.
Right now (today june 15) there is a strong diplomatic tension between France and the US.
Pompeo is calling the International Court of Justice a "Kangaroo court". Speaking of Kangoroo
courts, there is more than one around. Especially in the US. When you see the trap in which
Bayer Deustchland has fallen in the US Or what Giraldi rightfully points
Don't know why the US elite is so enraged with almoste everyone. Maybe because they are the
slaves of zionist billionaires. They are enraged because they are slaves.
Final grasps and misuse of power are probably fairly typical as an empire collapses. The
right leadership could turn this ship around and head our nation toward the moral high
ground.
But the political will to regain constitutional relevance and produce real leadership
seems defeated.
@Sean
ndreds, of thousands of Iranians over the following decades. What do the US and UK expect? a
pat on the back, Iran to forget all about it?
The US also encouraged and supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war which led to the
death of literally millions of Iranians. The US also shot down an Iranian passenger plane
killing hundreds without even so much as an apology (they gave the captain of the ship
involved a medal for it in fact)
My point is that you can't just start the clock (and the narrative) to suit yourself, you
are being ignorant and/or dishonest to do so.
The word sovereignty in the title gets right to the crux of this issue. The whole world
defined sovereignty by consensus at the UN World Summit. Sovereignty is responsibility. And
what's responsibility? Formal commitment to the UN Charter, the Rome Statute, and core human
rights instruments (the International Bill of Human Rights at a minimum.)
As always, the US signed with fingers crossed, interpreting the summit outcome in bad
faith in breach of peremptory international norms. The US is the last holdout or throwback to
the pre-modern concept of absolute sovereignty: arbitrary state power. Now if you look
closely, the state organ that actually holds arbitrary power is CIA. That is disguised by
lots of bribed and blackmailed functionaries and elected officials, but CIA murders them if
they step out of line, not excepting puppet 'heads of state' like Kennedy, Ford and Reagan
(sometimes they miss but they make their point.)
Now to the whole rest of the world, this CIA regime is not sovereign at all. Then what is
it? It is a criminal enterprise based on impunity. The legal relationship between responsible
sovereignty, absolute sovereignty, and impunity is very touchy to the CIA regime, which
dispatched John Bolton to the UN over Congress' explicit refusal, if you remember. And why?
What was Bolton sent to do? He obstructed the Summit Outcome Document with endless Neo-Soviet
nyets, submitting 600 amendments until drafters removed the trigger word impunity from one
paragraph.
This US totalitarian state considers that its arbitrary rule negates another universal
world agreement, the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Foreign Intervention,
A/RES/20/2131, which is in fact state and federal common law in the US.
So how does this legal conundrum get resolved? When the time is right, Russia, China, and
Iran point their missiles at a selection of defenseless US military assets and say, Go fuck
yourself. It's what the Russians call coercion to peace. We the subject population need to
prepare for this eventuality, because the current rebellion includes peace in its demands
(ask BAP.) The basis of US impunity is arbitrary use of force at home and abroad. The human
right to peace means capitulation for the CIA regime.
The reply is pure, direct nonsense. Iran is correct in supporting the Palestinians. The
United States supports the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It supports apartheid and
starving Palestinians.
There is no need for moderation. Through U.S. tax dollars to Israel, it supports apartheid
and the suffering of Palestinians who have had their land taken from them by the Israelis.
Look at map of Palestine today.
@Sean
tive and hews closely to Jewish interests as expressed & shaped by the Jewish-controlled
American media.
The death of 34 servicemen on the USS Liberty is barely a footnote of history, and while
the death of St. Floyd is tearing America apart, the brutal killing of American Rachel Corrie
in Israel was the butt of jokes among Zionists in the American media.
After all, making some deaths more important than others is a Jewish specialty and control
of the media means never having to say you're sorry – while others have to watch their
step or face the wrath of the mob.
@Sean
se they cannot control it. SJW Globalists hate Jewish Israel because they cannot control it.
Preposterous bloviation about the supremacy of supranational bodies is an easily
penetrated cover story. The obvious TRUTH -- One religion is intentionally misusing bodies,
like the UN/NWO, to assault Christians & Jews that it cannot control.
The U.S. must uphold its sovereign responsibility to oppose oppression and punish the
murder of its citizens. If Soleimani wanted to live, he should not have senselessly butchered
Americans.
The whole world knows that the US attack on Iraq was a war of aggression not condoned by
the UN. Also, the US didn't hide its intentions and put Iran next on the list (the Axis of
Terror ). Omitting these little details are very convenient indeed for it enables you to
portray the US soldiers as blue eyed UN Peace Keepers attacked by the malignant theocratic
regime, when in fact the opposite is true.
@Sean
but its status as a diplomatic mission may very well have been compromised by practises
contrary to Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation (Vienna 18 April
1961), in which case the Iranians should have simply asked the US staff to leave. but seizure
by the students made that moot.
Think of it as the Iranian Lives Matter protest of 1979. Its a shame the criminals behind
the current BLM and AntiFa movements aren't treated as harshly as we treat the Iranians,
though now that AntiFa made the list, maybe someone can connect the dots to Soros and relieve
him of a few billions.
Isramerica Inc. ceased being a nation state when the Rothschild Reich conquered the
American Republic in 1913 by establishing the Rothschild Reserve Bank. Give a Rothschild a
gun and he can rob a bank. Give a Rothschild a bank and he can rob a country. What Rothschild
Wants, Rothschild Gets. Rothschild wants his Central Banks in all Zionist Globalist
international city states. Rothschild wants control of all Zionist Globalist Corporations.
Bank of Isramerica,the City of Londonistan, Berlinks, Parisk, Zu Rich . Microsoft, Apple,
Amazon all KNEEL before the Rothschild Royal Family of Black Lives Matter. Rothschild wanted
WWI, WWII and now wants WWIII and a final solution to enslave the West, a ZODD. The Zionist
Owned Digital Dollar to COVID 1984 track, trace and enslave all of Cattlekind. DOWN WITH BIG
ZOG!
@joe2.5
to support divestment from Iran-oriented investments, in favor or investment in Israel.
This has been the case at least since Bob Casey's campaign to unseat Rick Santorum (aka
the
DumpRick campaign). Before Casey's win, he was taken to Israel by members of AIPAC, who
returned him to US shores assured that "while Rick was good for Israel, Bob will be even
moreso . . ."
Pennsylvania's Jewish governor, Jewish state's attorney, and Jewish transgender director
of public health are combining their authorities to impose some of the most stringent, and
fraudulent, sets of regulations on the people of Pennsylvania relative to the scamdemic.
-- Radical U.S. students seize the Iranian Mission to the UN, located in NYC.
-- They demand the turn over of Ayatollah Khameni for his war crimes against the Iranian
people.
-- The Trump administration "To Protect Innocent Student Lives" refuses to intervene for ~444
days.
Under your rules, these U.S. Students would be 'private citizens'. Hypothetically, no
violation of international law has occurred.
I suspect your hypertechnicality could lead to unintended, though currently hypotheical,
outcomes.
Precisely. Being that what you said applies equally to all 50 states, non-voting
territories, vassalages and messuages, the extraterritorial invasion of Iraq (or anywhere) is
on behalf of the same owners of the country.
Ooh! Sean used the IED word! How sophisticated. IED, IED IED!!! Would it be better they
used nice, professional ordinance, like the Yankees' depleted uranium? Yo' mama raised the
afterbirth!
I am sure A123 is wallowing in a puddle of self-extracted sperm by now.
Cute, the previous article I read was about how Zion and its Undeclared Soviets in America
plan to use force against the International Criminal Court. IED, I say.
Before Sean and A123 get together and breed more apologists for the satanic childfucking
cacastocracy and their queen Hillary. (Deposed by reason of failing clone stability).
The African Group (representing the 54 African countries in the United Nations) convened
an "Urgent Debate" (technically equivalent to a special session) in the HRC on, basically, US
killer cops – on the 17th, the fireworks to be broadcast/archived on http://webtv.un.org/
You can watch the US piss away its international standing.
Racial discrimination comes up of course, because Africans are extra touchy about pigs
killing jigs for sport, but violent attacks on your human right of assembly is on the agenda
too (UDHR Article 20, state and federal common law; ICCPR Article 21, equivalent to federal
statute.) Urgent debate in this charter body mobilizes the treaty bodies and special
procedures, which in turn supports propria motu ICC investigation of the US and its Izzie pig
torture trainers.
US Human Rights Network*/ACLU ask:
"If you live the United States, please contact foreign embassies in Washington D.C. that
are members of the UNHRC, especially U.S. allies, and urge them to support international
accountability for police killings in the U.S.
And if you live outside the U.S., please contact your Foreign Ministry or your country's
UN Mission in Geneva and let them know that you support the call made by families of victims
of police killings in the United States and over 660 groups from 66 countries to mandate an
independent Commission of Inquiry. This is the only credible accountability measure that can
effectively respond to the current human rights crisis in the United States.
Go over the head of your horseshit government to the world.
One day, A123, some sensible person will have the opportunity to take that PEACE emoticon
and shove it up your smutty throat. My dog is flapping his hind leg at the joyful
thought.
Also, you forget to mention the role your private international terrorist organisation, CIA
played in every so-called 'incident' regarding Iran.
The greatest danger of BDS is is the defunding of satanic criminal networks such as USAID,
CIA, MOSSAD etc. It's not like Israel has provinces full of industry to 'invest' in.
You do know that blaming Iran for that is quite a stretch. The technology involved was not
hard to acquire.
And what about the dozens of countries the US government has actively plunged into war,
killing, maiming and destroying the lives of millions and millions of people? WTF about
that?
Mr. Giraldi provides some noteworthy examples of pro-Israel legislation, but the names
could be tweaked a bit. Here's some proposed legislation that more honestly reflects the
character of our vaunted solons
1. The Israeli Destruction, Invalidation, and Oppression Tenet, also known as IDIOT.
Once ratified, IDIOT would require a congressional representative's public proclamation of
pride upon the occasion of any crime committed by Israel. Said proclamation must be no less
than 500 words and preempt all other matters pending deliberation. Failure to persuade one's
constituency of Israeli virtue warrants a donation of $250,000 to the incumbent's next
election opponent.
2. Completing the Ruinous, Execrable Takeover by Israel Now, or CRETIN Act.
This law would defer all civil rights cases ordinarily brought before an American justice
to a tribunal of members appointed and officiated by Alan Dershowitz. Appeals may be granted,
subject to a display of fealty including, but not limited to, ceding custody of one's
firstborn child.
3. The Doing Everything Israel Likes Act, hereinafter referenced as DEVIL.
Under this mandate, electronic bracelets such as those worn by felons subject to in-house
arrest will be fastened to every member of congress, their voltage increased in direct
correlation to the measure of their recalcitrance against Israel. Perceived acclimation to
the accompanying pain will necessitate either castration or sale into slavery. Should the
former consequence apply, the gelding will be permitted to preserve remnants of his manhood
in a curio cabinet display set up for public viewing in the Capitol Rotunda.
Only a Zionist would have the nerve to write such immortal nonsense while at the same time
the assaults on the Russian and Venezuelan embassies, the invention of shadow governments in
Venezuela and Bolivia and the Ukraine are occurring.
We have to account for the fact that there are younger people here, as well as those who
have yet to understand the dynamics at play. We also have to give him credit where it's due:
he knows how to elicit a response. Yet, in a forum of this nature, that's not too difficult
when you're running interference for the powers that be. In that sense, he's no different
than "Lot" or that other troll with a numeric handle.
His respondents don't imagine they're going to make him happy. Everybody just thinks
they're gonna be the one to whack the mole.
The solution for the many ills facing the US. This solution WILL entail violence.
From the Byzantines, Ezra Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the
Jews.
"The answer to the Jewish problem is simple," he said.
"Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government."
And this is how simple it is.
There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their
hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.
Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.
Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their
subversive doctrines.
Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation."
THE US IS DEAD & WILL BE NOTHING AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PETRODOLLAR. After Bretton
Woods, where the Jews used the US as they did in WWI, it can now be snuffed out as it has no
assets, industry and has destroyed every entity of ecological protection and is the biggest
user of geoengineering wiping out almost all life and that is the way the Elohim want it.
Gomberg map is just a short version of the most valuable state in the world and it's in you
damn dollar bill. Those little green nations are the owners of the earth and the top is where
the ALL SEEING EYE IS. It's all a fraud but people are as stupid as animals and will deserve
what is coming as the next pillar of the destruction of the US from St. John the Devine
states. Then a new birth after the deaths of billions. These were put up in 1997 and in 1999,
the messiah of Israel stated what would happen to the towers and is in STONE.
Jewish cohesion, skill, tenacity, and purposefulness has imbued this tribe with
unsurpassed status. And power.
International Jewry pilots world banking, orchestrates the manufacture of news and
entertainment (and public opinion), while it oversees all US policies in areas that affect
the standing of Israel or status of world Jewry. This is no small matter.
Inordinate Jewish power, and its distorting impact on international affairs, has become
one of humanity's greatest trials. It is the grand conundrum that we lesser souls are not
supposed to notice or ever complain about. This puts us on the road to ruin.
Hey A123 -- - I see where that little stinker Sean, stole your Hasbara Central talking
points. So now all you can produce is this crap -- - I know – what is this world coming
too? -- Art
@joe2.5
by the KJV Bible as edited by Samuel Untermyer and his seven or more employees that Untermyer
paid the known crook, the known fraudster C. I. Scofield to put his name on so it wouldn't
look like a Jewish-edited New Testament edition. He, the worm A123, swoons with joy when the
Jews vandalize Christian churches in greater Palestine and shoot Christians, which is
happening all the time.
A real nasty piece of work he is, A123, and a real clueless immoral idiot. It's a pity
he's too illiterate to read Ron Unz's Oddities Of The Jewish Religion. He'd soon learn
how the Jews hate him.
Judge jury and executioner. This is why this madness must end. When talking about systemic
oppression it is solely outward towards other nations. Such brutality and arrogance. The
worlds only chance is turning away from the dollar, Israel and the US.
'I think the Iranian government obviated any obligation for the US to abide by
international law and conventions, by seizing US Embassy personnel and using them as hostages
to influence US politics.'
That was over forty years ago. In 1985, what kind of behavior would you have advocated
towards Germany?
@MarkU
, to shooting down an airliner taking off from their own airport. Pauperised and paranoid,
Iran is self destructing. They got a pass for limpet mine tanker attacks and drone
destruction of a oil refineries in Saudi, so what did they do? Attack a US embassy in Iraq.
That is great thinking if they intended to get Trump to use force as he has long been known
to have been outraged by the hostage crisis of decades ago. Iran is helping Israel more than
the Palestinians. One can only imagine what disaster the Iranian leadership would bring on
their country if they had a thermonuclear weapon.
The "Gloat Over Your Broken Environment And Never Surrender" Act, or GOYBEANS Act.
If ratified, this bill would provide 666 million dollars annually for developing public
school curricula in partnership with the ADL, SPLC, and NAMBLA. Proposed as a reformatory
measure, the GOYBEANS Act was drafted in response to demands from the aforementioned
organizations that school curricula be more inclusive of topics such as nurturing gender
doubt, learning to properly hate, and the non-existence of Palestinians.
Times have moved on. Jews would need to be banned from the McMedia industrial complex,
including newspapers, cinema, TV etc. A ban on political donations would obviously be also
necessary. They should be free to worship Yahweh and themselves at length without causing
harm to others.
It should be a lesson learned for the rest of the world: don't keep any assests in the US,
or the West for that matter. Isolate from the West, divest from the West, sanction and
boycott the West, build your own institutions and link up only to non-Western countries.
Don't even bother to visit the West, find other places to vacation in. Anyway the West is
being ruined by your own immigrants, so why would you want to spend your holidays among
them?
We live under a tyrannous U.S.-led Anglo-Zionist fascism which is committing heinous war
crimes on behalf of the Jewish Israel and its Jewish supporters.
While there are some similarities between Anglo-Zionist fascism and German Fascism (Nazi
Germany), Anglo-Zionist fascism is more injurious, more ruthless and more criminal than
Germany under Adolph Hitler.
@Anon
aid to Mr Giraldi[post 4]: "If you never get to understand the true nature of all
governments, then you are forever doomed to complain about what it does"
Most people [including, of course, all the commie idjuts in "CHAZ"] live in denial of the
true nature of the government they complain about all the time, forever unable to see that
the state is doing nothing more than being,er, "stately". It would appear that you are no
different from them.
@MarkU
My point is that you can't just start the clock (and the narrative) to suit yourself, you are
being ignorant and/or dishonest to do so.
You are partly right. However, Sean is far from ignorant, though his lack of ignorance is
more than matched by his total lack of honesty. Both characteristics of a paid troll.
The zios must see UR, as a real threat to their mythical narrative, judging by the resources
they put into defending the undefendable, always going to be an uphill mountain, even for the
totally dishonest Sean and his cronies.
@Sean
Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real
Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired
financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a
world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian
nations.
The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews."
Paul Singer's best known legal battle is a marathon campaign to force Argentina to pay out
on bonds he bought at a knockdown price in 2001. He finally succeeded in getting a $2.4
billion payout last year. He has also been accused of profiting at the expense of other
impoverished nations, namely Peru and Congo-Brazzaville, a West African country where most
live in dire poverty. Singer acquired Congolese government debt though a Cayman Islands
vehicle and set about clawing money back through the London courts in a campaign over several
years, eventually winning £78 million.
Singer works for Israel in his world wide looting.
Singer is also the founder of Start-Up Nation Central, a Tel Aviv-based non-profit that
seeks to connect business and government leaders around the world with the Israeli people and
technologies that can solve their most pressing challenges.
His most recent looting project is to get Twitter.
An activist investor known as a major Republican political supporter wants to wrest
control of Twitter from co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey, US media has reported.
Your map looks straight out of Halford MacKinder's strategy for getting control of his
designated heartland. International banking owns both Russia and China. So it would seem the
shining city is both antiquated and dangerous. Also it can neither control its borders and its
cities . We really need to decommission the biological and nuclear weapons. Finally according
to your logic dementia Biden is the appropriated president for a demented USA.
The Nuremberg trials led to the creation of the International Criminal Court and
jurisprudence in matters of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and wars of aggression.
Make laws for everyone and then find ways to get around those laws. It's a never ending
Talmudic cycle.
The foreign policy of the ZUS has been driven by the zionists since 1913 when they took over
control of America with their privately owned FED and IRS and then came the wars and the attack
on the USS Liberty and their attack on the WTC on 911, designed to plunge America into
destroying the middle east for zionist Israel.
Read the book The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen,
and the Protocols of Zion.
2 Menachem Begin was frightened of being found out that his regime was conspiring against
Carter's administration colluding with GOP agents hostage release . He even physically
threatened Peres against trying anything on his own behind the knowledge of the Begin
regime.
3 I read somewhere that during the very early period of the developing hostage situation
Israeli operation inside Iran put the lives of the hostage at risk despite the people on the
ground from US agency requesting the Israelis not to do .
The US overthrew a democratically elected government and installed the torturing Shah.
The US precipitated the Iraq/Iran war and gave Iraq chemical weapons to kill Iranians.
Speaking of shooting down airliners , our fine USN shot an Iranian civilian airliner out of the
sky in 1988 killing a few hundred people.
You think any Iranian is losing sleep over the killing of Americans in a country that the US
illegally invaded and occupied?
Expressing many lies and sanitizng US 's dirty wars on Syria ,even ignoring it– here
is NYTimes
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/world/middleeast/syria-economy-assad-makhlouf.html
"The United States will impose sweeping new sanctions this week that could target the
businesspeople Mr. al-Assad needs to rebuild his shattered cities.
The Caesar Act, named after a Syrian police photographer who defected with photos of thousands
of prisoners tortured and killed in Syrian custody, requires the United States president to
sanction anyone who does business with or provides significant support to the Syrian government
or its officials."-NYT
It has already imposed sanctions and has done repeatedly . Caesar's photo journalism was the
playbook from Lantos Kuwait babies Curveball's begging for jail free asylum in US and from
Wolfowitz lies that Saddam was behind 911.
You have, in a nutshell, given the reason why the JewEssA declared Pound insane and had him
locked up.
"Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as a 'country run by Jews,'"
"America is a lunatic asylum."
~ Ezra Pound
As an update, "the West" could be substituted for "Europe".
But the impulsive George Bush should not have dragged Iraq into another war, he lied his way
into the war. A devout Methodist who is also a war criminal. And who do I see shuffling off in
the left corner? Why its the international statesman Henry Kissinger, who advised the Americans
that the Ayrabs would not respect anyone who raised the sword but would not bring it down.
But unlike others commenting here I agree that US Army owed Iran big time, for ambushing
them when all they wanted was to pacify the Shiites and Sunnis and get the hell out.
Nonsense. Sovereign states use whatever tools are available to further their geopolitical
objectives. To cite one of innumerable examples, China uses everything, including trade, against
recognition of Taiwan.
I'm old fashioned, I think the USG should leverage its strengths in pursuit of its
geopolitical objectives. Its current dominance of global finance definitely qualifies.
Giraldi has a soft spot for the Palestinians. Fair enough. Though he does them no favors by
putting them in the same bucket as Iran in this context. Z-man , says: June 16, 2020
at 3:25 pm GMT
@WJ It
is true that the US gave Iraq chemical weapons. However, the US had given Iran chemical weapons
previously. As Stephen Pelletiere, who investigated Saddam's alleged gassing at Halajaba for
the military, reported, cyanide gas was used to kill the Kurds. Cyanide gas was being used by
Iran.
The reality is, and Mr. Giraldi seems reluctant to discuss, that the US (Israeli) strategy
in the Middle East is one of perpetual chaos. If it became convenient tomorrow, Iran would be
an "ally" and Saudi Arabia an "enemy". As long as the Eretz Yisroel project is active, that
will always be the objective.
The Talmudic faction among them is a ticking time bomb. Why take the risk of keeping the
latent virus in a country? Check out the role of the tribe when Moorish armies advanced on
Toledo, Spain.
Jews have their own country now. They can non-violently be sent to live amongst their own
kin and make their Jewtopia. That is an option that historically wasn't available but since
1948 it's been on the table.
American "law" is a sick joke. The country was a "banana republic" before its zionazi
colonization, what it is now is a fully colonized "banana republic" under full control of
israeli oligarchical interests. I believe this full control was finalized in the quisling trump
regime and that one of the major roles this regime has been tasked to accomplish was finalizing
this zionazi/israeli full control. If not the major role they were tasked to accomplish. The
slow boiled frog is now dead and fully cooked.
@Sean S.
and its precious Operation Inherent Resolve have brought in weapons from Bulgaria, Libya,
Jordan, Israel, and the U.S., inter alia, to trying to bring down Assad to the tune of some
500+K civilian deaths so I'm missing the point of your moral calculus here. Basically, we wage
aggressive war causing massive casualties, destruction, and suffering but you highlight a
particular weapon used against U.S. forces who brought the full panoply of surveillance
platforms, armor, fighter bombers, artillery, electronic warfare, and infantry to bear in a war
based on lies and stupidity. Ours.
@padre
unded on fairness, the quest for justice, and equal treatment under law. A key objective would
be advancing the common good. Zionism distorts these principles.
Lawfare uses concentrated Jewish wealth to assure that Israeli objectives become
more equal under the US law. This subverts fairness as well as the Equal Treatment
doctrine.
Organized Jewish cunning tosses aside the common good in favor of what's good for the
Jews .
What we get in its place is a premeditated perversion of justice.
@al Muqawama
Local 12 ier sovereign could claim total independence and freedom of action in
international relations but his exercise of power was not necessarily whimsical, random,
authoritarian, or illegal.
The globalist, open borders, progressive crowd work hard to paint "nationalism" as the
supreme evil -- well, after advocacy of white interests -- but it is not the evil they
try to make it out to be. As with the E.U., the silk drawer set proceeded to obliterate the
nation state and its loathsome "nationalism" which is exactly the healthy antidote to their
sought-after collectivist, multicultural nightmare.
@mark
green n my illustrious (grin) career with a powerful government agency which was the
Vatican City of government agencies back in the day (meaning once you were in you were in an
untouchable club, 'a made man') I made my political opinions known to some extent. (Mistake) In
the course of my meteoric rise as a junior executive (lol) I may have called out a Jew or two.
Whell I was transferred from my cushy office job and put out in the field, like the Red
Guards of the Cultural Revolution in CHY-NAH, (lol). It might have been for my calling out of a
'chosen'ite'.
You really are stupid enough to believe that the Iranians were stupid enough to produce so
called IED's with "Made in Iran" written on them in English?
Phil Geraldi demonstrates that the US justice system is a joke and a farce. The court's hand
down verdicts like the courts in the former Soviet Union or North Korea do. The alleged support
of terrorism by Iran and Syria doesn't hold water. It's purely political and has nothing to do
with the rule of law. To argue that the State of Israel doesn't commit acts of terrorism is
bananas. Miko Peled, who wrote "The General's Son" https://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.com/2012/10/miko-peled-generals-son.html
stated in a speech on 1 October 2012 in Seattle: The Israeli army is the "best trained, best
equipped, best fed terrorist organization in the world." He continued saying: "Their entire
purpose is terrorism." The Israeli army commits acts of terror daily against the occupied
people of Palestine. Which Zionist law firm will take up their cases against the ruthless
Zionist regime in Jerusalem?
Ah, the old "senseless butchery" ploy, 99. I saw it coming a mile away.
Islam does not have 99 ploys. It extremely simple blood cult. The Muslim play book has only
3:
-1- Jihad -- Senseless Butchering of _________ (Jews, Christians, the weak, the innocent
)
-2- Taqiyya -- Lie about murders committed in the name of the Anti-Christ Muhammad
-3- Repeat -- Ploy #1 & Ploy #2
@A123
Soleimani. Since when do garden-variety military tactics and weaponry amount to SB? I've seen a
Muslim scientist who argued with some Muslim nut that the earth is in fact round. This despite
the authoritative statement of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia that the Koran says it's flat.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Forgive my obscure reference. "99" was the female lead in the amusing TV spy spoof, "Get
Smart." Maxwell Smart always referred to her as "99." She must have been flattered as she later
married him. In "real life" as we used to say. With considerable accuracy.
Ironically, if any of the right-wing figures of whom Soros is a favorite target were
aware of his instrumental role in the fall of communism staging the various CIA-backed
protest movements in Eastern Europe that toppled socialist governments, he would likely not
be such a subject of their derision.
Yeah, those Warsaw Pact regimes had to fall so that the populations of Eastern Europe (and
maybe Mongolia & Central Asia) could be exposed to the much more poisonous Cultural
Marxist "culture" from the West. It would be hard to have a FEMEN in the USSR of the 80s.
It brings this very curious information that I wasn't aware of:
On May 15, the US Department of the Treasury released Treasury International Capital (TIC)
data for March 2020. It showed that total foreign ownership of Treasuries dropped by $256.6
billion to $6.81 trillion.
I already knew there was a race to the Renminbi since China recovered from the first wave
of the pandemic (it is mentioned in at least two op-pieces in the Asia Times), but I didn't
know there was a correspondent race from the USD. Let's remember: in 2008, there was a race
to the USD; the USD became stronger than ever with that crisis, and America's dominance in
the financial sector strengthened, not weakened.
Now it may be different. The USD is getting weaker, not stronger. Faith in the USA is
weaning.
Also there's this nice little piece, very poetic, whose only value is in the fact that it
was written by an American who loves his country and served in the Army:
@ Posted by: juliania | Jun 15 2020 22:55 utc | 61
What will become of "Putin's Russia" is a very interesting topic.
Pepe Escobar's interview with Karaganov made it look like Russia's plan is to serve as
some kind of leader of the "non-aligned" countries in a future China-USA bipolar world order.
I found it too vague, could mean anything.
However, there's another, much more interesting, phenomenon: the rise of some right-wing
intellectuals from Russia and the USA who are trying to revive what we call nowadays as
"paleoconservatism". They are the Martyanovs, Dugins, Korybkos the guys who write for Unz and
The Saker, the Russia Insider team around there.
Those "new paleoconservatives" differentiate themselves in the sense that they really try
very hard to be intellectuals -- that is, they do not adopt the irrational methodology of the
typical far-right/neofacism, they abhor the neocons/neoliberals, they abhor the so-called
"woke left/cultural marxists/pluralists/SJWs" (which they frequently associate, if not
equate, to the neoliberals), they believe in some kind of a concept of race or racially
determined culture based on geography and climate, they certainly abhor scientific socialism
(some of them even, under absurd and extremely dumbed down arguments, directly stating Marx's
theory was wrong) but they also abhor Nazism - albeit for reasons that are not, let's say,
"orthodox". They are also against imperialism as the USA is practicing right now, but not
against "self-defense" imperialism, that is, the line is blurry.
But the most important factor that unites this group is their blind faith in Christianism.
They somehow believe that if you fuse capitalism (which, for many of them is not even a
system, but human nature itself) with Christian values (it doesn't need to be Christian
religion per se, you don't need to be a practicing Christian), you somehow get the perfect
mix between man's animal side (capitalism) and spiritual side (Christianism). It's like your
traditional post-war social-democracy, with the difference that they put Christianism in
socialism's place. As a result, you go back to the good ol' times, more or less in the 1950s,
where everything was, allegedly, "in their place".
This obsession with Christianism makes me, jokingly, to call this coterie as the
"Neobyzantines" - a bizarre postmodern chimera born from the degeneration of late stage
capitalism.
But this is the boring part. The cool part about the Neobyzantines is the fact that they
have a geopolitical policy. What's this policy? You guessed it right: they want a Christian
confederation composed of the entire Northern Atlantic (NATO countries)... plus Russia. This,
the Neobyzantines say, will save Christianism (and the correspondent white race) from
subjugation and hegemony of the socialist Yellows (some of them also have a racial-based
theory about why socialism/communism naturally occurs in East Asia; for some of them, South
Korea and Japan are even communist themselves already).
We know Putin was raised as a Neobyzantine. He's an Ocidentalist that believed in the
concept of an European civilization. That's why, in my opinion, he plays such a good sport
with the Orthodox Church, as it is a living fossil of the times of Peter the Great etc. etc.
However, as time passed, he became increasingly disillusioned with the USA and the EU, and
the ties were definitely broken with the invasion and partition of the Ukraine in 2014. His
policies, therefore, clearly became more Eurasianist, but that certainly was the result of
necessity, not free will.
Is Putin may be converting himself to "Neobyzantism"? Will Neobyzantism really become a
thing, or will it just be thrown to the dustbin of History, as was many other ideologies of
the past of which only a Historian knows nowadays?
re: neo-Byzanyines. Clever. And there may be something to that idea. Certainly the general
flavor of Christian conservatism you describe holds some real currency among the national
security types. However, despite ideological commonality across borders, I think it is
clearly nationalist and not internationalist.
The more theatrical "paleo" versions stand out, if only for being one of the few cohesive
alternatives to neoliberalism (socialism and socdem being sadly moribund). But if you dial
down the drama and take away the contrarian personalities, then pan-nationalist Christian
conservatism (and for that matter, the Islamic or Hindu analogs) can be integrated into
neoliberalism too. I don't see why not.
Considering the post-millennial generations may well end up in a Byzantium of some kind in
some decades, this is worth following up on.
Posted by: vk | Jun 15 2020 23:35 utc | 66 Will Neobyzantism really become a thing, or will
it just be thrown to the dustbin of History, as was many other ideologies of the past of
which only a Historian knows nowadays?
I've noticed that trend as well - the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church and the rise of
conservatism in Russia. I see it reflected in the attitudes on the Crosstalk show that I used
to watch regularly.
I agree that trying to resurrect Christianity is a major error. It will just lead to even
greater anti-intellectualism and irrational belief systems, and possibly even eventually into
a "theocracy" - hardly conducive to freedom. As a rabid atheist myself, I despise all of
this.
I think that, if we take it from your approach, the problem with the neobyzantines is more
related to the fact that they can't accept being juniors to the "yellows" (i.e. a non-white,
non-Christian people) than with Chinese-style socialism. They are like the reverse Chicoms in
this sense (and, if that's indeed the case, they are very different than the American
Bannonist far-right).
The Bannonists (I think Bannon himself coin his ideology as "Neopopulism" or something
like that) believe in the reverse case: it is good that the Chinese are to hegemonize the
world in the 21st Century - as long as they do so in a capitalist form, not in a socialist
one, that is, without the CCP at the helm.
Indeed, neoliberalism is very malleable, and for one very simple reason: it is not an
ideology per se, but a doctrine. Doctrines are not as much incisive as ideologies, but they
have the advantage of being very adaptable and quickly digestible. For example: who, at the
beginning of the 1970s, would think that - of all places - neoliberalism would find its most
fertile ground in Latin America? Theoretically, Latin America should be the
anti-neoliberalism area of the world par excellence, as it was the subcontinent that suffered
the most (except, maybe, Africa - but Africa was razed to the ground, there's no material
there to any doctrine or ideology to sprout) under the hands of American neocolonialism. But
here we are: the lack of a strong revolutionary movement in Latin America gave birth to a
strong inferiority complex, which created a political vacuum in which neoliberalism fitted
perfectly (Mexico, then Ménem's "Peripheral Realism", then FHC's "we must be the last
of the top" in Brazil).
Neoliberalism's success story in Latin America is a warning example for historians to
never stick to a sociological formula either for trying to explain History or to try to
predict History. There's always the human factor, that "x" factor that only good old method
of studying History can decipher.
--//--
@ Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jun 16 2020 1:53 utc | 80
I use the term "Neobyzantine" as some kind of pejorative joke (my humor is very dark). I
don't think those who I would classify as "neobyzantine" feed any illusions about the real
Byzantine Empire - which, as a Christian Empire, was an absolute farce: it was plagued with
schisms after schism inside Christianism that castigated them with endless drama, exiles,
executions, dead emperors and civil wars. No Byzantine citizen ever believed Christianity
would rise someday to become a world religion: it was under the hands of the Western European
medieval lords and their descendants that it became so (conquests of America, Africa, Oceania
and SE Asia).
It is a myth Christianism ever brought unity to the Roman Empire, but it may be true that
the early Christian emperors (from Constantine the Great onward) thought it would. If
Constantine and his successors really thought that, then they were to be proven completely
wrong - as today's schism between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox are to serve as living
evidence.
I think that, if we take it from your approach, the problem with the neobyzantines is
more related to the fact that they can't accept being juniors to the "yellows"
Well, not sure how that fits into the byzantine analogy, but I do think it is a central
unifying theme of conservatives in the west who are taking an anti-neoliberal position.
I think the position toward capitalism is something between nuanced and contradictory, or
at least very heterogenous. There is plenty of awareness of its ills of a state captive to
private $ and corps. Yet the ideal of free enterprise is celebrated without reservation, with
a real hope for markets that could in theory become non dysfunctional. So no, IMO
anti-neoliberal conservatives in the US are not socialist in the slightest (except the
military has universal health and education). Basically very sympathetic to the "libertarian"
side of it. But that may be unique to the US vs the rest of the "west". I mean this is all
stereotyping very much, everyone has their own emphasis. Also the economic idea are maybe not
so important to the byzantium / historical analogy, we might happen to prioritize them higher
ourselves.
Where does the Chinese socialism fit in? That is contradictory too. One has to make a
judgment of capitalism with Chinese characteristics, and also Socialism with Chinese
characteristics. Neither of those is a direct translation of the European versions of them.
You also have a strong and intimate state power, which the nationalists might actually be
jealous of but I find off-putting. I do think the commonality there, for the would-be
neobyzantines is, again, simple national power.
Kindof like Bannonites, except he represents just one version of this. Specifically, his
version of a conservative anti-neoliberal position is especially uninteresting IMO. And I
dont take most of what he says at face value anyhow. Just a particularly unattractive
nationalist IMO... Finally, I don't think he would make a good byzantine, but maybe I am
romanticizing the idea in my head a little.
Yes, I agree: the Bannonites are certainly not Neobyzantines. They are more like the
traditional fascists: radical in form, conservative in essence. They are like agents of chaos
- a domesticated chaos, of course.
The unifying factor of the Neobyzantines, in my opinion, is the fact that they believe a
universalized (forced upon the masses) Christian moral code can save capitalism. In their
opinion, it is greed by the rich and the depravity of the leftists that is the problem.
They believe that the end of the USSR and the slow rise of China (plus, I guess, the
failure of the West in Christianizing the Middle East and Asia) put an end or proved wrong
the existence of economic systems. In this sense, they lowkey agree with Fukuyama in essence,
albeit kot in form. This would also make the Neobyzantines part of the Postmodern
constellation of ideologies, which preach absolute relativism.
--//--
@ Posted by: A User | Jun 16 2020 3:36 utc | 87
Yes, if you think about it, the American Revolution was a petite-bourgoeis revolution: it
was just a bunch of small planters not wanting to pay taxes.
Thomas Jefferson certainly didn't imagine he was building the world's future sole
superpower. None of the founding fathers imagined that.
However, the American Revolution was important in the sense it was the first European
colony to achieve independency without consent of it metropolis. It showed the other colonies
it was possible. We know the American case would never be replicated, but it inspired the
colonised a world without metropoleis was possible, and opened way for the end of the old
colonial system in 1945.
Vk #66
I don't understand your ridiculous concern that their will be some grand alliance of the
"White Christian" world (the U$, Russia, and the NATO/EU puppets) along with some assorted
Non-White, Non-Christian, countries (India, Japan, South Korea, etc.), against "Yellow
Socialist China". In reality the only "Prominent" person who has entertained this
anachronistic lunacy is the wannabe fascist Drunkard known as Steve Bannon, who has no real
impact on anything beyond grifting illiterate Trump supporters (The last I heard of him, he
was drunkenly proclaiming the creation of a "New Federal State of China's" with some former
Chinese "Communist" billionaire on a dingy boat in New York Harbor, LMAO". In reality most of
the "Neobyzantine" fools you mentioned in both the U$ and Russia, are big advocates of the
phony idea that China is a "rising", "Socialist", superpower that is an alternative to the
Unipolar, U$-led, world order, as evidenced that the "Unz Review" and "The Saker" are filled
with articles by Pro-China hacks such as Pepe Escobar. Personally, I view the "Neobyzantines"
as a bunch of hacks and grifters who in Russia seek to brainwash the population into
believing that the USSR was an evil "Judeo-Bolshevik" abomination while Putin's Russia is an
"Orthodox Christian" paradise and rising Superpower, that is In alliance with the "good
Socialist" China, in a "New Cold War" with the U$, all while covering up the fact that
Putin's Russia is a utter joke compared to the USSR, due to its population wallowing in
poverty and degeneracy (so much for those Orthodox values,
LOL), and it losing half its territory and all its Geopolitical alliances and ideological
support (due to its rejection of Marxism-Leninism). In the U$, these quacks appeal to a very
narrow group of disenfranchised U$ right-wingers who seem to believe that Russia and China
represent some Conservative utopia, LOL. In conclusion, these people are much less
significant then you make them out to be and just serve as mere propagandists for the phony
New Cold War" of the U$ vs. Russia and China which like I said in my previous post is Fake
wrestling to confuse and distract the populations of all three countries as they are
oppressed by the same Neoliberal policies that all three governments implement.
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of 'clear
and present danger,' then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman
or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
Introduction: Questions about the official World War Two death figures increasingly mount.
Where are the proofs for these numbers? Where are the bodies? Did people just vaporize into
thin air–as some believe, going up in smoke through tall chimneys?
Two responsible figures have recently and publicly added their voices to the question of six
million Poles murdered (ostensibly by Nazis) between 1939 and 1945.
One is the last communist head of state for Poland from 1985-90, Wojciech Jaruzelski.
Speaking to a journalist for Izvestia (Russian daily newspaper), he said, rather
tongue-in-cheek, that he cannot understand how the Polish population exploded between 1946 and
1970, and then leveled off to become stagnant from 1990 till today. He humorously remarked that
there had to have been "a strong aphrodisiac" to lead to the birth of millions of new Poles
because "in the grocery stores there had been only vinegar and millions had died even after the
war."
The other is Dr. Otwald Mueller, a well-known German researcher, whose remarkable letter
appeared on October 17, 2009 in two American German-language newspapers, the New Yorker
Staatszeitung and the California Staatszeitung .
In his letter, Dr. Mueller discusses the six million figure that was widely reported during
the September 1st, 2009 conference, held at Gdansk (Danzig), Poland, marking the 70
th Anniversary of the beginning of what was to expand into World War Two.
A translation of his letter appears below, followed by a survey of actual mass graves that
have been found and excavated to date that physically reveal flesh-and-bone victims of
WWII.
Dr. Mueller writes:
On the occasion of Poland's victory celebration at Danzig/Gdansk, September 1, 2009,
you could read in the press the following statements:
1) Die Welt (German newspaper "The World"), September 2, 2009: "?beginning of WW II, 6
million victims in Poland, half of them Jews? ."
2) Daily Gazette (Schenectady, N.Y.), September 2, 2009: " .Poland alone lost 6 million
citizens, half of them Jews?"
[The Associated Press (AP) supplies news to nearly all newspapers in the US. That means
those news stories were published in nearly all US newspapers.]
3) Catalyst, Journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Number 6,
July-August 2009: "Six million Polish citizens were killed in the Holocaust – three
million of them were Catholics".
An important chart
There exists an important Polish population chart. It marks a pre-war Polish population
of 29.89 million people, and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million. The difference
is of approximately 6 million, or 21% of the total population. The chart seems to prove the
statement of "6 million" ? but, on the contrary, it contradicts it.
On page 413 of the book "Poland: It's People, It's Society, It's Culture" by Clifford
Barnett, HRAF Press, New Haven, CT 1958, the following figures are marked at chart #1: For
the year 1950, a population of 24,533,000; for the year 1955, a population of
27,544,000.
Where are the losses? They turned into gains, because –
For the years 1946 to 1950: a gain of 5.5%. For the years 1950 to 1955: a gain of
15.5%.
That shows in a significant way how Polish history – better Polish fairy tales
– works.
Caption: (by author) Between 1931 and 1946 there is a large loss of population, which
neatly adds up to six million Polish citizens, or 21%. We must keep in mind that 31% of
Poland's population was of non-Polish origin � one million were German, as you can see
from names of cities like Stettin, Gruenberg and Breslau. It also included 7 million
Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, and 3 million Jews. Even so, between the postwar years
of 1946 to 1955, the lost population is gained back again – minus 2 million. By 1950,
there is a gain of 908,000 in 4 years. And by 1955, an additional gain of 3,011,000 in 5
years! Can these be new births over deaths? No. They are more likely an "adjustment"- a more
accurate accounting than was done before. This increase cannot be from Germans, Ukrainians or
Lithuanians who returned to Poland, because Poland today is one of the most ethnically
homogenous nations in the world. Are they not Poles, who either returned from the East, where
they had fled, or never left?
Truth in regard to history The declaration by the chairman of the
German-Polish Bishop's Conference on the occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the beginning of
WW II states: "The church will definitely take steps against such inadequate handling of
historical truth. We recommend and encourage an intensive dialog which always includes being
ready to listen to the other side."
The German Bishop's conference unfortunately did not comply, so far, with its own
directives. They did indeed "listen carefully" to their Polish partners and accepted all
Polish historical interpretations without ever questioning or correcting. It is an outrageous
way to violate historical truth when the author of that chart names the cities of Allenstein,
Danzig, Koeslin, Stettin, Gruenberg, Breslau, Oppeln – in the provinces of East
Prussia, Pommerania and Silesia – as "Polish cities."
The declaration of the bishop's conferences reads: "Seventy years ago, on September 1,
1939, German forces started their attack against Poland." (Tagespost, 27 August 2009, page 5)
Thus the second world-war began. How truthful is that declaration? In reality, Stalin also
started his attack against Poland with his Soviet Red Army on September 17, 1939. Hitler and
Stalin together started a local war which ended after 6 weeks. Well, Stalin might have just
said "Nyet" and Hitler would have stayed home. Stalin was not forced to sign a pact with
Hitler. Stalin gained 51% of pre-war Poland.
One violates the truth in dealing with history when one identifies the Germans expelled
from the German East provinces as "Polish victims."
The German Bishop's conference should consider it their task to urge the Polish Bishops
to see that those Polish historical distortions are corrected.
In pre-war Poland, millions of Ukrainians, White Russians, Lithuanians, Ruthenians and
others were living. How did they become Poles? No newspaper report tells the story.
April, 1920 – 22 years before Hitler [invaded the SU] – the Polish Army
under Pilsudski started the victorious campaign against the Soviet Union.
On May 7, 1920, General Rydz-Smigly occupied Kiev.
At the peace treaty of Riga, March 21, 1921, Poland gained vast Ukrainian and White
Russian territories with a population of about 11 million.
Did anyone have any doubts that the Soviet Union would sooner or later retake those
regions? That happened in August 1939 with the Hitler-Stalin pact. Why did the bishops not
mention that? Why did the German newspapers, so eagerly interested in historical truth, not
report it? All the guilt is loaded on one side; the others carry no guilt at all.
Bush's America attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003. No Third World War started because no
one wanted one.
Katyn
Up to June 7, 1943, the Wehrmacht excavated and identified, as well as possible, 4143
Polish officers murdered by the NKVD. (Louis Fitzgibbon: Katyn – A Crime without
Parallel, Scribner's Sons, New York 1971)
If it were correct that 3 million Polish Catholics were murdered, as the Catalyst
journal states, one must have found in Poland about 750 mass gravesites of the same size
during the past 65 years (3,000,000 divided by 4000=750), each with circa 4000 dead. Or 1500
mass gravesites, each with 2000 corpses. It is not known if even one of those mass gravesites
has been found. If they would have found only one, journalists from all over the world would
have been invited to come and visit. All newspapers would have published terrible pictures
and stories for weeks. But did we not indeed find one such gravesite – at Marienburg in
East Prussia, now called Malbork by the Poles? Yes, but they were German deaths, and not
Poles. Now, one can convincingly say that argument also contradicts the thesis of the 6
million.
A ray of hope on that topic
Maybe the search for historical truth progresses slowly. In the Maerkische Allgemeine
Zeitung (German newspaper), August 28, 2009, one can read the following headline: "The
numbers-to-date of victims are incorrect – 70 years after the start of the war,
scientists are searching for facts." Warsaw: "The numbers of victims of WWII are to a great
extent wrong. That is known among specialists and expert historians. Most of the figures are
too high: 20 million deaths in the Soviet Union, 6 million deaths in Poland, 2 million among
the German expellees. For political reasons, the numbers were increased after the war.
Reparation negotiations were already carried on during the war. High loss numbers justified
high reparations requests from the Germans–"today we know most of the figures entered
into that game then are wrong " and: " the historian Mateusz Gniastowski came to the
conclusion that the losses of ethnic Poles had to be corrected from 3 million to 1.5 million
."
Bartoszewski talks With the headline, "No restitution for Jewish property,"
the Junge Freiheit (German magazine) of 28 August, 2009, reports the following: "Wladyslaw
Bartoszewski, ex-Polish secretary for foreign affairs, vehemently denied any restitution
payments for Jewish properties by Poland."
Bartoszewski: "Of the 3.5 million Polish Jews, nearly 2 million lived in the Ukraine
and White Russia of today." A very interesting statement – naturally, they became, in
October 1939, Soviet citizens and were never again Polish citizens.
The consequence? Regardless what did happen to those people between 1939 and 1945
– whether they survived or were killed – they could not be counted as "Polish
victims" but belong to the victim chart of the Soviet Union. Otherwise they are counted
twice.
Final conclusion: According to the statement of Bartoszewski alone, the number of the
alleged 6 million Polish losses must be reduced already by 3.5 million (1.5+2). The Poles
have no right to count German, Jewish, Ukrainian losses as their own. The 6 million number of
WW II Polish deaths do not comply with serious historiography. ~
1) Clifford Barnett: "Poland – its people – its society – its
culture" HRAF Press. New Haven, Conn. Survey of World Cultures,1958
2) German-Polish declaration of the chairman of the Bishops Conference on occasion of
the 70 th anniversary of the beginning of WWII. "The reconciliation between our
nations is a gift." (Die Versoehnung zwischen unseren Nationen ist ein Geschenk). Die
Tagespost, 27.6.2009. Page 5
3) Gerhard Frey: Antwort an Warschau (response to Warsaw} FZ – Verlag (publisher)
2009
4) Louis FitzGibbon: Katyn–A Crime without Parallel. Scribner's Sons, New
York.1971
5) Maerkische Allgemeine ( a German newspaper w 29.8.2009; "Geschichte:Die bisherigen
Opferzahlen sind falsch" (History: The present loss figures are wrong)
6) Junge Freiheit (Young Freedom): Keine Entschaedigung fuer juedisches vermoegen (No
redemption for Jewish property) 28.8 2009
~End of translated letter ~
How many survivors are counted as both survivors and victims because of the chaotic movement
of peoples, boundaries and rulership – giving inflated numbers of victims? This is a
common error, which seems to be purposely overlooked.
We have a right to ask where are the remains of the three million Catholics murdered by the
German Nazis. The only known mass grave of Poles was the work of the Soviet Red Army, led by
the NKVD, in the Katyn Forest in Soviet Russia. Long blamed on Germany, the responsibility for
this genocidal act is now placed where it belongs. Ironically, the only mass gravesites found
on Polish territory have been of German civilians. There are not even any mass graves of Poles
– Catholic or Jewish – on the grounds of the famous concentration camps. No buried
ashes either.
Let's take a look at what mass gravesites have been found, and what they contain.
MASS GRAVES IN MARIENBURG CONTAIN GERMAN CIVILIANS
In the previously German city of Marienburg, now named Malbork, Polish workers digging a
foundation for a future hotel across from the Marienburg Castle, in October 2008, came upon a
mass of human bones and skeletons. By December, about 470 individuals had been found, none of
whom could be identified. A German organization dedicated to caring for German war graves sent
a representative to attend the digging. By April 2009, the number of dead had climbed to 2000.
When further discoveries were ruled out, the dead totaled 2116: 1001 women, 381 men, 377
children and 357 not identified.
At Marienburg, a pit full of human bones, but "We aren't finding any personal objects, no
glasses, no gold teeth and above all, no clothing," said Zbigniew Sawicki, Malbork
archaeologist.
Other mass graves stemming from World War II have been found around Malbork. In 1996, 178
corpses were discovered on the grounds of Marienberg/Malbork Castle. In 2005, specialists
exhumed the bones of 123 more, including five women and six children, from a trench. All are
believed to be Germans.
In the case of this latest and largest mass grave (2008), no clothing, eye glasses or gold
teeth were found. It thus appears that they were completely stripped before they were killed.
The skeletons that were laying on top had bullet holes in their heads, indicating they may have
dug the grave and put the dead in it before they themselves were added.
The Germans who did survive were forced to leave the city. The relevant authorities in the
newly established Polish district announced proudly on November 3, 1947, that the Marienburg
area was "almost 100 percent purged of Germans." (Spiegel, Jan. 23, 2009, "Death in
Marienburg: Mystery Surrounds Mass Graves in Polish City.)
On August 17, 2009, 108 coffins with the remains of the 2116 victims of war atrocities which
took place in Marienburg in early 1945, were buried elsewhere, at the Volksbund War Memorial
Cemetery near the village of Neumarkt, close to the old Hansa city of Stettin, in former
Pommerania. The highest dignitaries attending were the German ambassador to Poland and bishops
from both nations.
Czechs have not claimed massacres from the war – other than the 173 men of the village
of Lidice, who were executed for harboring the murderers of Reichs Protector for
Bohemia-Moravia, Reinhard Heydrich, as an example to those who would cooperate with the Czech
underground (considered by the Germans as an illegal terrorist organization).
Still, there was great desire to retaliate following the retreat of the German Wehrmacht and
the arrival of the Soviet Red Army and NKVD. Postelberg/Polstoloprty and Saav/Zatec, two towns
northwest of Prague, saw brutal massacres of at least 2,000 Sudeten Germans in the space of a
few days in June 1945.
The largest mass grave contained 500 bodies and had been known since an inquiry into it in
1947. After that, in August 1947, other mass graves were secretly dug up and 763 bodies were
removed and cremated. But there still remained more.
Meanwhile, documents in Postoloprty were classified as confidential and disappeared into
Interior Ministry archives. Today, a majority of Czech residents in these towns admit the
massacre, but do not want to talk about the case and oppose building any memorial structures at
the gravesites. ( Der Spiegel , "Czech
Town Divided over How to Commemorate 1945 Massacre," Hans Ulrich Stoldt, Nov. 4, 2009)
There was also the Bruenn/Brno Death March, which began late on the night of May 30, and the
Aussig/Usti nad Labem Massacre on July 31, 1945–both majority German towns in the same
area of Northwestern Bohemia. Basing their decision on the Potsdam Agreement, the Czech
"National Committee of Brno" announced the expulsion of 20,000 ethnic Germans, mostly women,
children and elderly (the adult men were all POW's), and forced them to march 56 kilometers
south to the border of Austria. Once there, however, the Soviet authorities refused to allow
them to cross, so they were marched back into internment. Many died and are buried along the
way; up to 8000 perished in the terrible conditions before the survivors were released.
The Usti massacre was triggered by an explosion at an ammunition dump. Though the cause of
the explosion had not been determined, ethnic Germans were beaten, bayonetted, shot or drowned
in the Elbe River, where most still remain in their watery grave.
No mass graves of Jews have ever been found on Czech soil.
SLOVENIA: THE KILLING FIELD OF EUROPE
Over 100,000 people fell victim to summary executions on Slovenian soil immediately after
the end of the second world war. These were suspected Nazi collaborators and opponents of
communism – murdered by Tito's Yugoslav federal army or by Slovenian civil authorities
and the Communist secret police, OZNA.
"The killings that took place here have no comparison in Europe. In two months after the
war, more people were killed here than in the four years of war," said Joze Dezman , a
historian who heads the government Commission for Concealed Mass Graves.
A task force of the police and state's prosecutor's office has exhumed 12 mass graves and
filed two criminal complaints, with no indictments so far, according to the Slovenian Press
Agency, March 20, 2008.
A particularly gruesome discovery was the mummified remains of approximately 300 pro-Nazi
soldiers from Croatia and Slovenia in a mining shaft in Huda Jama.
"Gassed to death: 300 lime-covered victims of Yugoslavia's communist regime found in mass
grave," by Graham Gurrin, 3-11-09, Mail Online, UK.
They are thought to have been killed with gas because there are no visible signs of wounds.
Piles of military shoes were found at the entrance. "It seems that the victims had to undress
and take off their shoes before they were killed," said Joze Balazic, of the Institute for
Forensic Medicine in Ljubljana. The bodies were found in an underground passage some 400 meters
from the cave entrance, in good condition because they had been covered in lime and the cave
had been hermetically sealed with several walls of concrete separated by layers of barren soil.
(Javno, 3-4-09, Translation: Karmen Horvat)
Photos: Unclothed skeletons wearing shoes appear to have died in agony in a mass grave in
Huda Jama, Slovenia. Positions indicate there was movement before the victims expired (they
were buried alive). ( photos no longer
available )
THIS IS WHERE THE WAR WAS ENDING
Slovenia was part of the former Yugoslavia. Dezman said, "These killings took place in
Slovenia because this is where the war was ending: this is where the iron curtain was
anticipated, this is where refugees found themselves at the end of the war."
He also says that "due to the short time frame, the number of victims, the method of
execution and their sheer extent, the reprisal killings of suspected Nazi collaborators and
other opponents by Communist authorities in Slovenia could be compared to the biggest crimes of
Communism, as well as Nazism, anywhere." (Slovenian Press Agency, March 20, 2008)
Another historian, university professor Mitja Ferenc , has unearthed more than 570
hidden grave sites from World War II. His digs have cracked a psychological barrier in Slovenia
and sparked new political debate about the sins of that war, wherein thousands of Germans,
Croatians and others on the losing side were killed.
In 1999 he found 1,179 skeletons in a trench near the city of Maribor, where a road by-pass
was being constructed.
[The department of highways pressed to continue the road works, and the (left-wing)
government in Ljubljana ?had no objections, although very likely, thousands of corpses were
still hidden in the trench. Present investigations revealed that there are at least 15,000,
possibly more than 20,000 corpses. The tank trench was suitable for mass killings, it was big
enough to line up pow�s and civilians, shoot them with machine guns and cover the
corpses with earth. Frankfurter Allgemaine, "Slovenia: Massacres after the War," by
Karl-Peter Schwarz, 10-16-06. ]
Slovenian forensic experts investigate the site discovered in 1999 by Slovenian highway
workers near Maribor, where 1,179 skeletons were found in a World War II-era trench. It's
believed up to 20,000 are actually buried along this stretch of roadway.
In 2007 a new dig began nearby in the Tezno Forest – it's believed as many as 15,000
dead lie in this spot of timberland. Military gear indicates they were Croatians and
Germans.
"My point is to find out what's out there. Without excavation, there is no way to
know ," said Ferenc.
BRITISH DECEIT; STILL NO OFFER OF REGRET
The Queen pictured with Yugoslavian president Josip Tito, front left, in 1978 after hosting
him at Buckingham Palace. Behind are Prime Minister Lord Cardiff and Prince Philip. Tito was
supported by the British in the war, and its representatives turned thousands of fleeing
German, Croat, Slovene and Cossack forces back to Tito's partisans in 1945, knowing they would
be killed.
In May 1945, German troops and Croatians were trying to reach Austria in order to surrender
to the British rather than Tito's brutal fighters. Tens of thousands of Slovenes, Serbs,
Cossacks, Romanians and others joined the frantic flight.
Tamara Griesser-Pecar writes in A people divided. Slovenia 1941-1946. Occupation,
Collaboration, Civil War, Revolution (Publisher: Boehlau Verlag, Wien 2003) that all
Yugoslavs of German ethnic background were declared outlawed by the "Anti-Fascist Council of
National Liberation of Yugoslavia" (AVNOJ). Those who survived the horror of the labor camps
were expelled from the country.
She speaks of the 60,000 Croatian soldiers and civilians who were massacred on Slovenian
soil. Thousands vanished, to be found in recent times as skeletons bound at the wrist with
wires. Not all were German sympathizers, but Catholics and other anti-communists fighting what
they considered a civil war.
There were also the 25,000 Cossacks and 2000 Domobranci Slovenians who were part of the
German army retreating in early May to the valleys of Kaernten in southern Austria, where they
surrendered to the British who, promising they were being sent to Italy, forced them into
locked railroad cars that instead went directly to the waiting Soviets in Styria and the Tito
partisans at the Austrian border–certain death at the hands of their enemies.
In the Gottschee Horn (Kocevski Rog), 12,000 Slovenians were murdered. In another pit near
Ljubljana, Croatians and Cossacks had been murdered – German prisoners were forced to
clean out this pit with a "horrible cadaverous smell" and thereafter were murdered
themselves.
Mitja Ferenc said Yugoslavia's communist authorities persistently refused to
acknowledge the executions had taken place and refused to tell relatives where the bodies were
buried. For almost 50 years, people were not allowed to visit the graves. Many of them were
destroyed by deliberate explosions or covered by waste. In some places, such as Celje, about 60
km (35 miles) east of Ljubljana, parts of towns were built on them.
"The evidence is being gathered but the fact is that most evidence has been systematically
destroyed in the past ," Joze Dezman said.
Typifying the ongoing attitude of the communists is 85-year-old Janez Stanovnik, a partisan
fighter as a teenager who held high government positions under communism.
"I'm not proud of what happened in May and June 1945, but I am proud of what the partisans
did during the war," he said. "Is this really something another generation has to pay for
– or see used for political capital?" (Chicago Tribune, "Wartime heroes, sinful
secrets," Christine Spolar, Jan. 29, 2008)
IN UKRAINE, JEWS HUNT FOR BODIES
Sparked by all these discoveries, Jewish groups have undertaken to discover their own mass
graves in the Ukraine and Russia, which they claim to be the "killing fields" of World War
II.
But for all the hundreds of thousands of Jews who are claimed to have been murdered here by
the Nazi Einsatzgruppen, no remains have shown up in any large numbers. [The
Einsatzgruppen were special SS task forces whose job was to protect the German fighting
forces from behind-the-front attacks by the local population and communist partisan
fighters.]
But it is suspicious that little to no excavation is taking place to verify the number of
bodies or to identify whether they are Jews or not, or how they were killed. The search parties
and excavation teams are made up entirely of Jews, without government or neutral parties
involved.
For instance, according to an article at Y-Net News, an Israel-based internet site,
published Sept. 8, 2006, a secret private mission called "Kaddish for Ukraine's Jews," chaired
by Yehuda Meshi Zahav, began looking for mass graves of Jews massacred during the Second World
War. This mission was initiated by the Jewish Congress and French historian/priest Patrick
DesBois (author of Holocaust by Bullets ), with the help and funding of the national
holocaust museums in Paris and Washington D.C.
Around Sept. 1, 2006, this mission uncovered what they say are hundreds of Jewish skeletons
in a Ukrainian forest next to the city of Lvov.
They say they used metal detectors to detect bullets. When the metal detectors went off,
they began digging and, at two meters down, sculls and skeletons began to surface. They say
they counted hundreds and most were children . They say they recovered
German-manufactured bullets marked with the years 1939 and 1941.
This "find" has been widely publicized in world media as a "holocaust" mass grave, yet no
tests have proven the remains to be Jewish, or the perpetrators to be Germans. It is
assumed.
We know the Soviets killed thousands of Ukrainian and Polish anti-communist nationalists
before retreating from this area in 1941. There were also terrible massacres of Poles by
Ukrainians and Ukrainians by Poles before and especially during WWII (over the disputed region
of Volhynia) 1 . After the war, there were fights between Ukrainians and Russians in the
part of Ukraine that Russia got from Poland.
The Kaddish delegation has estimated that 1800 Jews were buried here–even though they
did not excavate and count all the bones. The Ukrainian authorities have agreed to recognize
the area as a Jewish burial site , which means the bones can stay where they are. The Kaddish
delegation performed a religious ceremony and erected a memorial monument in a matter of two
weeks after the announcement of the discovery was made! This kind of haste is usually the mark
of a desire for non-investigation.
JEWS GET CONTROL OF ANOTHER GRAVESITE
Another site that has received a great deal of attention is Gvozdavka, a village in southern
Ukraine, near Odessa, where another group of rabbis insist thousands of Jews are buried. It was
found by chance in the spring of 2007 when workers digging to lay gas pipelines discovered
human bones.
As soon as the bones were discovered, the Jewish community in Odessa requested the
authorities to cease construction work.
Israeli rabbis "help" to excavate a mass grave they claim to have discovered in Ukraine.
(Reuters photo)
According to a story in Haaretz, June 6, 2007, "Mass WWII-era Jewish grave found near
Odessa," Rabbi Abraham Wolf announced that the authorities had also agreed to give the
Jewish community ownership of the land so it could build a monument commemorating the
victims.
Odessa chief rabbi Shlomo Baksht revealed their plans to fence off the site and erect a
monument to the victims that same year!
In a follow-up story 8 days later in Haaretz (June 14, 2007, "Israeli Rabbis help excavate Holocaust-era
mass grave" , it's reported that a dozen rabbis were on the scene – 3 of whom were
Holocaust scholars from Israel, others from the U.S. – and "spent several hours hunting
for bones, which they immediately shoveled back into the ground."
In the follow up article, it's reported that Vera Kryzhanivska, who heads the village
council, said it would soon discuss a request to hand over control of the meadow to Jewish
groups.
Some Jewish community leaders complained that villagers didn't show enough respect for the
dead. "How could people just walk past the grave and do nothing?" said Ilia Levitas, the head
of Ukraine's Jewish Council. "Where is their Christian mercy?"
* * *
Since these two finds in 2006 and 2007, there have been no more claims of mass graves of
Jews. As we know, there are no substantial remains of either bodies or ashes discovered at the
concentration camp sites of Treblinka, Belzec, Sorbibor, Chelmo or Auschwitz-Birkenau, all in
Poland. The killing-by-bullets of Jews that supposedly took place in the Ukraine is not showing
up in any new mass graves, even though Father Patrick DesBois continues to search. He finds a
few bodies here and there.
What are we to think? When it comes to Germans and their allies massacred and thrown into
pits, we have masses of evidence compiled by official government agencies, even when they are
resistant to do so. When it comes to Poles, Ukrainians and other Slavic ethnic groups, we don't
find them buried in mass graves by the Nazis. When it comes to Jews, we have only the word of
Jewish delegations that thousands of Jews are buried in mass graves that they refuse to
excavate.
As Mitja Ferenc, the Slovenian history professor, remarked of his own discoveries: "Without
excavation, there is no way to know."~
1) "The Soviets, having enlarged Soviet Ukraine to the west, deported tens of thousands of
the Volhynian elites, mostly Poles, to Siberia and Kazakhstan. These actions ceased only when
the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941." And "The 1943 decision of Ukrainian
nationalists to cleanse (Volhynian Poles) was [ ] based upon news of the Soviet victory at
Stalingrad" (with the expectation of the end of German occupation). "Ukrainian partisans killed
about fifty thousand Volhynian Poles and forced tens of thousands more to flee in 1943." Later
the Poles turned the tables on the Ukrainians. (From "The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic
Cleansing 1943," Timothy Snyder, Yale University, 2003)
– A classic example of what Carolyn Yeager writes about, here's all that was found
at Sobibor, where 250,000 Jew remains are said to exist. Of these there is no proof of even
the age of the skeletons, whether they were even Jews, whether they were even murdered. Yep,
the "holocaust" narrative is that bogus.
– Sobibor, mass grave where 250,000 Jew remains are said to exist
Lack of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Lack of Jewish mass graves which nobody is
really looking for because it is not really permitted, ostensively for religion reasons, can
not give the answer to the missing Jews providing that there is such a question. Jews are
missing only in the Holocaust deniers' minds. Normal people will agree that the official
number of 6,000,000 is might be too high and that rather three to four million Jews died
during WWII and they are not missing because they are dead.
Mystery of the Missing Americans
There are 2.6M deaths per year in the US. 50% (1.3M) are cremated. 1/3 of ashes are
buried at cemeteries, 1/3 are kept at home and 1/3 are scattered. This means that every
year in the US ashes of 430k people are scattered into environment. The 1/3 kept at homes
will be scattered into the environment sooner or later so the number of scattered ashes
will be circa 800k per year. In 5 years it is 4M people. In 20 years it 16M people. In 40
years it is 32M people.
In last 40 years 32M people vanished w/o a trace. How would you go about proving it to
Holocaust deniers that 32M people in American died and that they were not teleported to
Venus? There are no graves. No exhumations. Nobody even try to find the answer. Wally of
CODOH would not accept any documentation because he would claim it was forged. He would not
accept any witness statement because he would claim that all so-called witnesses lie. The
claim that 32M Americans in last 40 years died and were cremated can't be proven. Wally
must be right that 32M of Americans were teleported to Venus.
Furthermore, can you imagine the absurdity of cremations? The conspirators want us to
believe that they cremate the corpses while charging for shaving the corpses and applying
make up and dressing them up in their Sunday's best. Why would they do it if they allegedly
cremate the bodies and plan to throw away the ashes? That does not make sense. For some
reason they want them bodies to look good on Venus.
Otoh the question of missing Germans or the question of atrocities committed against
Germans can be
tackled by searching mass graves. There is no prohibition against excavating of non Jewish
graves. For example why nobody tried to confirm James Bacque's hypothesis by searching sites
of Eisenhower's POW camps in Germany? If one million or more died there, the graves should be
easy to find. Say, 1,000 graves with 1,000 bodies each. Find at least one.
The Jews have a long Talmudic tradition of lying victimhood.
Consider the typically ridiculous self-reports of victimhood in tractate Gittin 57b of the
Torah, the 4 BILLION (yes, BILLION) Jews killed by the Romans [Gittin 57b claims
Vespasian killed "four hundred thousand myriads" = 400,000 x 10,000 = 4 BILLION] and the
64 MILLION Jewish children skewered and burned in scrolls by the Romans in one city
alone [Gittin 58a claims "400 synagogues" each with "400 teachers" and "400 pupils" for each
teacher" = 400 x 400 x 400 = 64 million]. http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#PARTb
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_58.html
Truly as Jesus said, children of the Father of Lies and Murder. John 8:44
This article seems eerily similar to Gunnar Heinsohn's revision of 1st millennium history
based on stratigraphy – no layers for a historical period of civilization, then that
history is false or fake. 700 phantom years are missing and the collapse of the Roman period
seems to thus have occurred circa 930 AD, and not 700 years before.
Given the sensitivity of the topic in this article, I limit comment to the idea that
proscriptive dogma is invariably used to bury facts and to keep them buried. Whether
proscriptive dogma is used in ignorance based on false beliefs, or is official policy remains
moot. But propaganda 101 is to always accuse your opponents of your own crimes.
"Juedische Allgemeine": the destruction of Poles as a nation was never planned
https://www.dw.com/pl/juedische-allgemeine-zagłada-polaków-jako-narodu-nigdy-nie-była-planowana/a-50041291
Lesser cites numbers given by historians Feliks Tych and Mateusz Gniazdowski, according to
which in the occupied territories Germans murdered over 90 percent of Polish Jews and from
five to seven percent of ethnic Poles. "In absolute numbers, they were three million Jews
and about 1.4 million ethnic Poles," he writes. In 1947, at the behest of Jakub Berman, a
member of the PZPR Central Committee Political Bureau, the number of victims "was
arbitrarily rounded to 6 million or 22 percent of the pre-war population. The idea was that
Polish Christians would not feel discriminated against as victims of Polish Jews. Berman
also hoped that this operation would stop the venomous anti-Semitism in the country,
"writes the author.
There are many geographical inaccuracies in this article – eg the author thinks that
Bruenn is near Aussig. They seem to have a very sketchy understanding of the ethnic fabric of
Eastern Europe both before and after WWII and I would therefore caution anyone to accept
their findings or conclusions.
"When it comes to Jews, we have only the word of Jewish delegations that thousands of Jews
are buried in mass graves that they refuse to excavate."
Well, story telling and theatrical exaggeration seems to be in their blood, especially the
latter.
It's even commemorated in a song about their most important empire, Hollywood:
"Hooray for Hollywood! Where you're 'terrific' if you're even good . "
Take the exaggerations with a grain (or truckload) of salt, and let's all just pray the
horrors visited upon the hapless Europeans (and everyone else) during WW2 are never
repeated
The War on Knowledge , Truth and Common Sense will go on until the honest researchers get
finished with their work. But the Enemies, that wish No sharing of knowledge, truth etc. are
many and work very hard at spreading the lies and cover-ups. If the bullets found in these
trenches are known to be German made ,plus the date of origin, then maybe we could be told
what Pharma company supplied the gaz for all the other proclaimed deaths – the dates
and where the chemicals were produced , would be appreciated – also. I thought it was a
very good article.
If it were correct that 3 million Polish Catholics were murdered, as the Catalyst journal
states, one must have found in Poland about 750 mass gravesites of the same size during the
past 65 years (3,000,000 divided by 4000=750), each with circa 4000 dead. Or 1500 mass
gravesites, each with 2000 corpses.
It is not known if even one of those mass gravesites has been found
At the end of 1944, the Germans, obliterating the crime, burned most of the corpses
. In the Szpęgawski Forest, as many as 7,000 people could have died, approximately 2400
names were established. In the cemetery there are 32 mass graves in one complex and 7 graves
500-1000 m away.
Slightly off topic,but also interesting:After the war,13.3 million Germans were deported from
Poland,Chekoslovakia and Hungary,but only 7.3 million actually arrived in Germany,mostly
women,children and old people.6 million Germans had disappeared.Many of those were sent to
Russia for forced labour.
-first post-war German chancellor Konrad Adenauer in a speech in Bern,Switzerland,March
23,1949.
This has to be one of the most risible, amateurish rubbish masquerading as Holocaust
revisionism.
The title says -Some Answers to the Mystery of the "Missing Jews" – and whoa
3/4″s of the article is about post WW2 Communist atrocities, did you think that the
Stalin & Beria combine would spare anybody associated with the Nazis when they swept East
Europe? And the most Hilarious bit is that this dogs puke of an article completely ignores
the AR camps, how can you give answers about the missing Jews while ignoring the AR
camps.
Listen if you can't answer about what happened to those 'Missing Jews' of the AR camps
kindly shut up.
Shame on you Ron for publishing such amateur Rubbish here, if you want to go full
Revisionist publish Carlo Mattogno or Rudolf or some professional.
"Jewish groups have undertaken to discover their own mass graves in the Ukraine and
Russia, which they claim to be the "killing fields" of World War II."
What they're digging up is probably the remains of the millions of Ukrainians the
Bolshevik Jews murdered through forced famine in 1932 and the millions of Russian Christians
they slaughtered starting in 1917. Historical irony indeed.
There is no definitive history. More will come to light as research continues, or should I
say as long as it is allowed to continue?
In other words, Nazis were actually a good guys, while Soviet, Yugoslav communists were the
villains?You are counting Poles, Jews and Checks, while forgetting to count all the others,
like Gypsies, Russians, Serbs and other Slavs?
What an extraordinary article. Why are these facts not generally known? Yes, I am joking.
History is of course always written by the victors. And the Jews always seem to win
I don't understand why Jewish groups and their rabbis were given control of two mass grave
sites. Did the civil authorities conspire with the Jews to pretend the bodies were of Jews?
Or did the civil authorities know that if bodies were found when laying a pipeline that
they were certainly Jewish bodies?
Although mass graves of non-Jews were known to have been in those regions?
If skeletons are found I guess it's hard by examining them to know they were Jews. But why
was it assumed that they were?
And when the Jews wanted the pipeline work stopped, I suppose it would have stopped simply
because there were bodies there, whether Jewish or not.
I may have failed to understand the article. Or perhaps it omits relevant information.
Furthermore, can you imagine the absurdity of cremations?
Indeed, you had better struggle mightily, because in the year 2020 we have learned that
all of the crematories in Italy combined were unable to dispose of more than a few hundred
bodies per week. Struggle!
@Wally
Here's a suggestion; if you like poetry and read German, try Gertrud Kolmar. If you like
opera. read about Ottilie Metzger-Lattermann (one of the Kaiser's favorite singers). If you
like classical music, follow the career of Viktor Ullmann. Just these three for a start so
you can find out how peacefully they died. However, I have a strong feeling you would prefer
to deal in millions (or the lack of) instead of individual fates.
But let's see, how many Germans died at the Dresden bombings? None, because we can't find
their graves to count? The first victim of war is truth, numbers are almost always wrong or
difficult to estimate. Propaganda from one side is no different than propaganda for the other
side.
Thank you for this information. It is astonishing how much people aren't allowed to know.
Mass graves of Germans murdered by the communists, and many tens of thousands of Slovenians,
Croats and others who fought the communists. But socialist school teachers in Europe harp
endlessly about "gassed Jews".
Jews get control of found graves and immediately erect fences and memorials, without
excavation, declaring them Jews. "Proof that Jews were killed!" No mass graves of Jews ever
found at any of the concentration camps. The "einsatzgruppen" have been blamed for killing
Jews – of course the Jews hated them, as they were the ones tasked with beating down
communist attacks on German forces behind the front army.
Unz Review should concentrate on these factual stories, rather than Marxist fantasies by
people like "Eric Striker," who claims that "the Soviet Union would have worked if it had
been Germans instead of Slavs," and constantly makes excuses for socialists while making sure
you concentrate your anger about Black riots on conservatives. Unz Review should clean the
ranks.
@Reger
This article (like the comment section) is full of retarded trash. The Holocaust happened,
and the number of brutally murdered people has likely been officially under estimated,
and the only people denying the Holocaust are those with a serious learning disability and
poor attention span. I also suspect many of the people in the comment section (such as
GeeBee) are coping Jewish individuals.
Not just the missing jewish remains – misleading and skewing.
There is another nasty double standard re the victims of the well known German and other nazi
aligned Labour (concentration) camps.
How many on here have heard of Jasenovac?
It was a death camp – a real death camp.
So vile even the gestapo were sickened.
It was a Nazi Croatian mass murder camp where hundreds of thousands of allied Serbs, gypsies
and others died, suffering appalling torture and murder.
The Serbs – who NATO/US/UK mass murdered and bombed back to the stonage some 25 years
ago – died valiantly and like flies – tying up whole divisions of the
Germans.
In gratitude and on behalf of the islamic fundamentalist Saudi leaning KLA we repaid this
debt illegally attacked the Serbs – the only ethnic cleansing being some 700,000 Serb
refugees driven from their ancestral homes in the Krajina (20,000 more murdered because they
couldn't leave fast enough), over a quarter of a million of them out of their ancestral
homeland of Kosovo and many from Bosnia and other parts.
700,000 who lost it all.
Reparations due I think.
All illegal and to give radical islam a base in Southern Europe and build a massive USA base
– Camp Bondsteel.
Back to Jasenovac .
This was the most deadly and brutal camp of all.
Heard of it.
NO.
Few Jrewish victims so written out of history.
Just as have been the millions of non jews killed in the other camps.
The disabled etc – many catholics.
All written out as only Jews can be the victims.
Here are just a few of the links to Jasenovac.
And ask yourself why the silence on the suffering of the Serbians – huge numbers dying
fighting for we the allies – not as some groups, not fighting at all but
profiteering. https://jasenovac.org/what-was-jasenovac/
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/jasenovac-the-forgotten-extermination-camp-of-the-balkans/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252563/
So why the silence – only one holocaust allowed?.
And Serbs are not members of that club.
And how many know that the Serbs have been completely vindicated and Milosevic declared an
innocent man of war crimes .
Murdered non the less in his prison http://johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media
One is the last communist head of state for Poland from 1985-90, Wojciech Jaruzelski.
Speaking to a journalist of Izvestia (Russian daily newspaper), he said, rather
tongue-in-cheek, that he cannot understand how the Polish population exploded between 1946
and 1970, and then leveled off to become stagnant from 1990 till today. He humorously
remarked that there had to have been "a strong aphrodisiac" to lead to the birth of millions
of new Poles because "in the grocery stores there had been only vinegar and millions had died
even after the war."
What the late General is referring to is the common trope that during communism (actually
socialism but I will leave that for another time) there was only 'musztarda i ocet' that is
mustard and vinegar on store shelves. It was a common accusation against the system as a
whole and Jaruzelski personally since he was an important part of the said system. On more
than one occasion he defended himself and his times by pointing out – sometimes in a
tongue-in -cheek fashion as in the quoted citation – that it could have not been so bad
if Poland's population growth is anything to go by (he sometimes pointed out other advances
but again I do not want to side-track here) as Poland indeed experienced a demographic
explosion. Of course this resulted in many problems, for example despite a program of massive
apartment block building – in virtually every Polish city and town you will see rows
and rows of such apartment blocks standing – there was a chronic housing shortage.
Thus with citing Gen. Jaruzelski's remarks in the context of Polish and Jewish victims of
German atrocities Ms. Yeager and her sidekick managed to make it to the very top of Unz
review's comic relief category. My sincere congratulations.
That was the funny part and here comes the more serious one.
Namely Ms. Yeager and her sidekick were kind enough to write: 'The only known mass grave
of Poles was the work of the Soviet Red Army, led by the NKVD, in the Katyn Forest in Soviet
Russia.'
Let me just point out, that mass graves with Polish victims of German mass executions were
located among other places at:
Palimiry, Las Sękocinski, Las kabacki, Laski and many, many others locations such as
for example Ponary (outside of Poland's post WW II borders in present-day Lithuania).
I do not know if Ms. Yeager and her sidekick are that ignorant in regard to the topic they
write about or if they deliberately lie, or alternatively there is some other explanation
– that however is of secondary importance. What is of primary importance is that what
they wrote is not factually correct.
One could go on dissecting Ms. Yeager's and her sidekick's writings however I have better
things to do on Sunday. Yet the above should suffice to put parts of their 'work' into the
category of comedies while others into that of falsities* – that in turn weighs heavily
on what to make of the rest.
*With one caveat though: hundreds of years of Drang nach Osten were indeed reversed in a
very short time at the end of WW II, sometimes in a brutal way. Thus there IS some truth in
what Ms. Yeager and her sidekick produced, this being in the category of an exception which
confirms the rule in regard to the rest.
@JohnPlywood
What is a 'coping Jewish individual' exactly? You are of course at liberty to suspect me of
being anything you like. But none of your suspecting will ever change me from being anything
other than a proud, thoroughbred Yorkshire Anglo-Saxon, who can trace both parents' lines
back for centuries with no trace of anything outside of our own fine, yeoman, Anglo-Saxon
bloodline.
My admittedly unusual 'take' on twentieth-century history arose from making a closer study
of it than I had hitherto stirred myself so to do, in the wake of having been obliged to take
early retirement at a convenient moment, in that it coincided with the appearance of much
hitherto unavailable information thanks to the burgeoning internet era. My prior studies had
by no means been trivial: I had taken modules in both War Studies and International Affairs
to degree standard while at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.
At all events, I believe my current position to reflect a good deal more of the truth than
is contained in the 'official' history, and I can assure you that my epiphany in this regard
occasioned me the very keenest mental anguish at first. Not to put too fine a point on it, I
found my life-long beliefs turned upside down. Not at all a welcome development, but one that
intellectual honesty compelled me to accept.
@Ann Nonny
Mouse Don't be so cynical. Because the Jews acting collectively have never and can never
do anything wrong, it follows that any criticism of their collective behavior anywhere and at
any time, whether today or throughout history, is hate speech.
We also know from Freudian science that it arises from envy and that paranoid
guilt-projection plays no part in their condemnation of the Other. Laws to that effect
throughout Europe also provide scientific evidence that Jews never lie and, therefore, their
narratives of events taking place outside the laws of nature and not subject to rules of
logic or scientific method must be true.
So, Mr. Holocaust doubter, just maybe the rabbis, reaching into the pits, have discovered
miraculously intact passports, photos, and birth certificates as before, using the forensic
skills their agents displayed in the ashes of the Trade Center and Pentagon to locate paper
miraculously immune from fire, water, and the forces of explosion sufficient to render
concrete into dust.
And when the Jews wanted the pipeline work stopped, I suppose it would have stopped
simply because there were bodies there, whether Jewish or not.
I may have failed to understand the article. Or perhaps it omits relevant
information.
The omitted info is the following:
Ukraine is a US/Israel controlled nation since 2014.
Nuland's, a Jewish Zionist, world famous battle cry begin the Zionist coup and Zio rule of
Ukraine with these infamous words "F–k the EU."Poroshenko the first president of this
Zion colony was half Jewish.The second president Zelensky is Jewish.The Zionists in control
of this US/Israel colony are even afraid Shabbos Goy to take the presidency of their new
colony.
@HammerJack
It is true that India cremates millions per year, that is their tradition. However to attend
a Hindu cremation and to observe, really observe the logistics required to burn ONE body is
to realize the impossibility of German logistics to effectively do away with 6 million in
addition to fighting a war against multiple opponents.
One need not have a Doctorate in Maths. Just pick a modern City with 3 million
inhabitants, visit it and drive around it extensively and now imagine you will completely
decimate TWO (2) cities like it by killing and burning every single human being in them. The
infrastructure, transportation, human resources and material logistics required for such a
task are horrendous. At the same time you are fighting a major war against several nations, 2
with with almost unlimited manpower and industrial capacity. Toward the end of the war
Germany was fighting on 3 fronts, being bombed to smithereens and also battling partisans in
several countries AND also running their extermination program ??
It is one thing for 6 million families in India to cremate 6 million relatives. I find it
hard to believe that the staff in all the concentration camps would be up to this numerical
task AND make the bones and ashes of 6 million disappear completely.
I love a good ghost story but my powers of belief have their limit.
During my visit in August I myself observed the burning of bodies in a mass grave near
Kiev. This grave was about 55 m. long, 3 m. wide and 2½ m. deep. After the top had
been removed the bodies were covered with inflammable material and ignited. It took about
two days until the grave burned down to the bottom. I myself observed that the fire had
glowed down to the bottom. After that the grave was filled in and the traces were now
practically obliterated.
I just don't know where to start. Whole "article" is such a BS. OK, let's start from
beginning then:
Two responsible figures have recently and publicly added their voices to the question of
six million Poles murdered (ostensibly by Nazis) between 1939 and 1945.
"One is the last communist head of state for Poland from 1985-90, Wojciech Jaruzelski (
)"
LOL.
General Wojciech Jaruzelski. Head of military junta that took over power from Party in
1982, responsible for murdering dozens of people. Cold blood mass murderer, aparatchik, liar
and Soviet hardliner. Such a perfect "responsible figure"! And delicious cherry on top
– he most likely was "wtornik" too (it's margin note, I can explain meaning of this
term and whole story but only if somebody will be genuinly interested). During inteview with
Soviet, communist, cenzored newspaper. Said something. Wow! Groundbreaking news. Let's
rewrite all history books.
The other is Dr. Otwald Mueller, a well-known German researcher.
Right
Let's check this "researcher".
"Die Welt (German newspaper "The World"), September 2, 2009: "beginning of WW II, 6
million victims in Poland, half of them Jews ."
2) Daily Gazette (Schenectady, N.Y.), September 2, 2009: " .Poland alone lost 6 million
citizens, half of them Jews" ( )
An important chart
There exists an important Polish population chart. It marks a pre-war Polish population of
29.89 million people, and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million."
SO HE IS WELL-KNOWN GERMAN RESERCHER?
And his scientic research regarding even basic facts are based on bloody TABLOIDS? GERMAN
TABLOIDS? And he can not even "research" population chart for Poland?
ROTFL is not enough.
Are you mocking and insulting all Poles and Polish citizens who died during WWII? Or
perhaps all world's scientists and reserchers including half-baked and fully stoned first
year history course students? Do you think all your readers are complete idiots?
Facts: Republic of Poland population in 1938: Roughly 35 millions. NOT 29.89 millions. 35
MILLIONS.
Here any kind of discussion ends. I kindly ask all readers to check that one fact
yourself. Find Poland population before WWII. Got it? Now ask yourself: do you like to be
fooled like that? This "well-known German reasercher" (and Carolyn Yeager and Wilhelm
Kriessmann who published such a BS) lied to you about most basic fact. Cause they think that
you are absolute idiots. Are you?
Anyway. Just for fun let's verify very next "fact":
"There exists an important Polish population chart. It marks a pre-war Polish population
of 29.89 million people, and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million. The difference
is of approximately 6 million, or 21% of the total population. The chart seems to prove the
statement of "6 million" but, on the contrary, it contradicts it."
"and for the year 1946 a population of 23.6 million".
True.
"The difference is of approximately 6 million, or 21% of the total population."
The difference is approx. 11 MILLIONS, or 33% of the total population.
And yes. It was that bad. One third of total population lost (notice: LOST! Not all died.
Some publications did indicate that 6 millions died, it could be one of the reasons for
possible confusion regarding subject, among others)
Source: As for official count and confirmation of data I recommend Nuremberg Trials
protocols and final statements. It's all there. Again – if you are interested find
exact relevant data yourself, source provided.
"That shows in a significant way how Polish history – better Polish fairy tales
– works."
Yes. I do understand Otwald Mueller is absolutely hideous, abhorrent and disgusting
person.
Not only liar, not only completely fake "researcher" and real Nazi comforter and backer but
absolutely disgusting character too. No doubt about it. Still it's always good to know the
true, whatever it is.
Let's "reserch" just next fact. That will be simply very next sentence.
"We must keep in mind that 31% of Poland's population was of non-Polish origin one million
were German, as you can see from names of cities like Stettin, Gruenberg and Breslau."
We have to, we really have to keep in mind Otwald Muller is not only hideous person, liar
and fake researcher but also complete idiot. We are talking absolute moron who is willing to
lie about most basic facts, even when simpliest fact checking will expose him as a complete
fraud.
Now, I do not know exact ethnic population of Poland in given time. I can easily check it
but there is no point. Let's assume it was 31% of non-Polish, just for the sake of argument.
And let's assume 1 million were Germans.
"as you can see from names of cities like Stettin, Gruenberg and Breslau"
German science at it finest.
1. STETTIN is GERMANIZED name for Polish name SZCZECIN, not the other way around.
2. Same story with Wroclaw (for short period of time known as Breslau).
Exposing this german moron (and those behind him) is like kicking a puppy. I am sure he is
true vile character, he has very worst intentions for real victims of WWII and he is doing
his best to cover German crimes of WWII.
Still exposing him does fell like kicking a puppy.
And I am not going to waste more time exposing more of this BS "letter" and BS "article
anyway. Not unless somebody will be genuinly interested.
So one final note regarding lol very german cities of Stettin and Breslau:
My English isn't fluent so I explain it in simplest way I can. Szczecin is a name for
settlement built/established by Slavs (Wkrzanie) in VII century. It is old city and old name.
Yes, most of city dwellers were Germans from like XVI century to 1945. No it's not because
this city was build by Germans. It was taken by Germans (not Germany, it was Hanza, lol, it's
a long story, to cut it short – let's say Germans) centuries after it rose and they
changed name only a bit, to make it easier to pronounce. Germans don't do SZ and CZ
diphthtongs hence Stettin. It is as easy and simple.
BTW there is so much more to the story of Szczecin. Like city coat of arms ("Gryf" or
"Gryfin", eng. Griffin) and the fact even when citizens were mostly Germans, for 500 years
rulers where "Gryfici" native Poles of House of Griffin. Very old and noble family. House of
Griffin ended in XVII century, natural causes.
Breslau. It's even funnier. Again. Breslau is germanized name for Polish city.
And again. Fascinating story but let's keep it short. First settlement then town, then
city. Slavs, Poles, Poles. One of most important Polish cities. First name recorded?
Vuartizlau. 1133. In Thietmar's Chronicle.
Now if you are not familiar with Thietmar then just a brief: Thietmar of Merseburg,
German, bishop, historician. Kudos to him for good effort in writing down city name as
similar to way it was spoken as posssible. Vuartizlau gives a lot of hints regarding, well,
many things.
Serbian ideology is chock full of lies. For instance, lunatic Serbian ideologues
(Milojević, Lukin Lazić, Pjanić Luković, Deretić), from the 1870s to
the 2010s, have claimed that:
* Mesopotamians are actually Serbs
* Siberia got the name from Serbs (S-b-r..well, it's like S-r-b)
* half (at least) of Egyptian pharaohs & Roman emperors were Serbs
* Jesus was a Serb
* Homer, Aristotle etc. wrote in Serbian
* all Slavs are actually Serbs, as well Germans etc.
* all ancient civilizations, except yellow races (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Rome, Greece,..)
were Serbian
* etc. etc.
As far as WW II is considered, official censuses from 1931. (the last census in Royalist
Yugoslavia) and from 1948. (the first in Communist Yugoslavia) show that there are c. 700,000
more Serbs in all of Yugoslavia- and 3,500-14,000 less Croats, despite annexation of Croatian
areas formerly held by Fascist Italy (Istria, Rijeka, 5 islands with exclusively Croatian
population).
So, Serbs who are supposedly the greatest victims in ex-Yu WW II show a growth in absolute
numbers by 700,000 & Croats who are supposedly perpetrators, or lesser victims- are
diminished in absolute numbers by 14,000 (despite adding a significant Croatian-only
territory)?
The whole Yugoslav & Serbian narrative about WW II is one big, fat lie.
@Ann Nonny
MouseI don't understand why Jewish groups and their rabbis were given control of two
mass grave sites. Did the civil authorities conspire with the Jews to pretend the bodies were
of Jews?
Ukraine has a Jewish president and a Jewish prime minister. The current regime was
installed following a coup organised by their Jewish cousins in the USA. Fewer than 1% of the
population is Jewish – but this is a democratic government after all.
Politicians and journalists who don't toe the line are shot. The victims never seem to be
Jewish. Here is the latest one only a few weeks ago – May 22. I doubt if it made the
MSM anywhere.
@padre
Anyone who ever fought in a war will tell you there are no good guys, no side is right while
the other is wrong. All war is atrocity on both sides sometimes deliberate sometimes just
sheer revenge. To experience the reality of a battlefield, before, during and after is to try
to survive under the most terrible conditions physically and emotionally intact.
As I tell any young man who would lend me an ear. There is no glory and honour in war.
These are words the politicians use to provoke youth to wash their dirty laundry while they
chill in nice comfortable and safe homes licking up the finest wines and foods. The youth get
to eat any cheap shit they feed you, in a hole, with assorted vermin, without a bath or
change of clothes for at times several days, most times defecating and peeing in your pants
from necessity or sheer terror. Why nourish and nurture a man who may have a life expectancy
of a few hours ?
I dont look at war movies. They are all bullshit. I passed the TV once when my son was
looking at one such movie. The actors all look so clean and well groomed. An artillery shell
landed and some of them somersaulted as if they had bounced on a trampoline and then landed
all intact. That is Hollywood! The reality ? When a heavy shell lands among men they
disappear. You might find a leg with the boot still attached. A discerning person may say
"Yeah, that is Billy's leg. I remember because the boot had such and such a mark carved on
it". But the rest of Billy is nowhere to be found. Its called "Missing in Action"
During and after a war, civilians may wax about humanity, peace and love and goodwill to
all men, who was good and who were the criminal types but those classifications do not exist
on a battlefield or in a war. Even God is nowhere in sight, what would he be doing there
anyway ?
And if God has made himself scarce who or what is good and who and what is bad ?
Jews are missing only in the Holocaust deniers' minds.
Were there ever two better lines written to illustrate the hate that Jews have for
non-Jews and the disrespect that Jews have for the minds of non-Jews?
"Keep searching goy, lack of evidence that you are a murderer does not mean that you are
not"
"Lack of hard evidence of your crimes and our victimhood is only lack of evidence in your
mind".
What a lunatic.
Completely representative of your people.
Wonder no longer why you people draw so much animosity.
Normal people will agree that the official number of 6,000,000 is might be too high and
that rather three to four million Jews died during WWII and they are not missing because
they are dead.
"Normal people will agree"
Who is this, a member of the special needs Hasbara team? Using condescending rhetoric that
is so rudimentary and ineffective that it is given to the short bus participants to make
noise? Is today also the field trip to the yeshiva, where you will read from the torah like a
real Jewish boy?
No one "normal" would agree with your any of your self-interested logic after reading the
lines that I prior highlighted. In fact, "normal people" would reflexively investigate the
opposite position.
In fact, "normal" people would and do discount the entire story after it came out, as
admitted by Jews themselves, that Simon Wiesenthal invented the additional 5 million
non-Jewish dead for sympathy. And that lie was put forward as true for decades.
You people don't lose "part credit" or "part credibility" for that lie. You lose it all.
And that's before we get to the rest of the proof against Holocaust logic.
You are inveterate liars, mass murderers, willing oppressors, and thieves.
Even when Jews LIE it is only to bring joy into the world. Take one Herman Rosenblat who
wrote, "Angel At The Fence," describing his time in a concentration camp during WWII. Good
ole Herman was making the talk show circuit with his book and there were plans for a movie,
UNTIL, it was found out that good ole Herman Rosenblat had made the whole story up, it was a
LIE. The nice Jewish boy, Herman, had Doprah Pigfrey calling his book the greatest love story
of all time. teehee. When caught in a LIE, Herman said he was only guilty of trying to bring
joy into the world.
Jews are such a caring people. Jews are champions of human rights for everyone and they
always seem to take joy in their role as their brother's keeper. Here was a Jewish man who
did not seek fame nor money, no sir, his concern was bringing joy into the world through a
book. Jews can teach humanity so much. Jews have suffered so much. And don't let Jewish
power, money, and influence fool you, or their role in the pornography business or other
seedy occupations, Jews are people of the Book, and the pillars of the community. Jews have
championed the fight against White racism and civil rights for Blacks, they are tireless
workers for truth, justice and the American Way just like Superman. Go Jews.
Fallacious. Taurus excretus cerebus perplexus – and we all know which party
throws most of the BS in the perverse hope of obfuscation – they just can't help
themselves. Then see 33.Anonymous[506]. rgds
Keep in mind how many tons is 1,00,000 people. If the average weight of 1,000,000 people was
135 pounds then the total weight of that 1 million is 135,000,000 lbs. Divide that by the
number of pounds in 1 ton which is 2,000lbs and you get 67,500 tons of human remains. Now how
the hell do you hide that much human remains of one million people much less 6 million.
@utu
Always remember that the other pertinent truth is that the Jews were guilty of everything
that the Germans accused them of.
As is well-evidenced by what Jews support, control, and how they otherwise act as a
political group today.
The Jews are no different than Al Qaeda. They merely work to hurt outsiders with lies
about their identities and motivations, their control of the press, their influence on the
culture, and their perfidious political actions once embedded in governments. Instead of with
literal IEDs.
Jewish goals are parallel to the goals of Al Qaeda, with much better results.
That the Jewish and Islamic religions share virtually all of their theological DNA is not
a coincidence.
@GeeBee
True that jews always seem to win but the fact is they cant lose one major war or they are
done forever. Israel cant lose one war or she is done. Arabs can lose 10 wars and the come
back for another one someday. If Hitler would have won jews would have been done.
@Ann Nonny
Mouse I know the place they are discussing and you have to remember Odecca has always
been a heavy Jewish city. But only when it suits their best interests. In this case –
getting more free land and calling out the Orthodox folks . Even goes back to the Khazarian/
Pecheneg times, when they chose to be Jews because the Ottomans in the south and the Rooskies
in the north were pressing them to be either Islamic or Orthodox. Of course they chose the "
chosen ones religion" for their slave trade and usury / theft trade. The normal
Russians/Crimeans that I know that are jews are way cool folks – they even have family
is Israel but no big ego. Just normal Russians.
@utu In
justice, absence of evidence is absence of evidence and has been for thosand of years
everywhere, except for ancient Egypt . If you cannot provide evidence, the accused is
innocent. This is called presumption of innocence.
Very good thinking that adds up to nothing more than:
The original statement is that "absence of proof is not proof of absence," which simply
means that a lack of proof for something doesn't, in and of itself, prove that the thing is
false. But lack of evidence for something is most definitely evidence that the thing in
question may be false, especially when there should be evidence for that thing.
But beyond the silly proof you offer that the absence of evidence is proof of presence,
the answer to your question about how one would prove that those whose ashes disappeared had
really died is easily answered by death certificates, cremation records, and evidence of
funerals or memorial services that were held, and announcement about the death of the
deceased.
But even your notion that the ashes of the holocaust victims would have been as scattered
as would be the case of cremated remains scattered throughout the United Statges by relatives
is absurd with rerspect to holocaust victims who were all allegedly killed in very confined
geographic spaces and whose ashes the Germans certainly did not bother to scatter throughout
Europe to hide them as your example of relatives scattering the ashes of relatives throughout
the country would have them do.
That you would even provide this example to substantiate the holocauset reveals the
absurdity of your claiming it happened as claimed. Had it happened on the scale claimed,
there would be massive evidence of it just as the examples provided in the article about the
mass graves of real victims that have been found.
Indeed, given the millions killed in the fighting on the Eastern Front there should be
endless examples of mass graves first of the millions of Russians killed during the German
advance the Germans almost certainly buried in mass graves as the Russians did likewise of
the Germans killed during the Russian advance.
So where is the evidence?
An easy place to look as Babi Yar where 30,000 Jews were reportedly murdered in a very
specific site. Why has no one looked to prove it with the evidence of the bodies?
@utu
– You really should know what you're talking about before you speak. Remember, it is your "Holocaust Industry" which claims that such immense human grave sites
exist in known locations, not Revisionsts.
– Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable
'holocaust' storyline is the message.
– The millions of other deaths you cite are not based upon the ridiculous
"holocaust" claims of enormous numbers of people dying in highly centralized locations in
which, again, the locations are supposedly known.
– As for military deaths, I remind that that there are cemeteries all over
Europe.
– There have been many, many attempts to find the alleged huge mass graves in
which many millions have been supposedly dumped. Those attempts failed miserably, as I
demonstrated about Sobibor in the first comment in this thread.
@Reger You
say "many geographical inaccuracies in this article" and you cite one. Indeed, the one you
cite is an error – Bruenn/Brno is not in the "same area of Northwestern Bohemia" as is
Aussig/Usti nad Labem. Brno is in the south.
I will correct this on my website, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. But it is
certainly not weighty enough to undermine the rest of the article, which is based on
newspaper accounts from the time. Since that time, no new diggings of any consequence have
been undertaken. The will to do so, by those in authority, is not there.
@Bardon
Kaldian Croat Ustaša killed thousand of Serbs, it's well documented, do you deny
that?
This is supposedly from a Gestapo report, if true it's quite damning, it's not a source
that would want to incriminate their own allies:
Increased activity of the bands [of rebels] is chiefly due to atrocities carried out by
Ustaše units in Croatia against the Orthodox population. The Ustaše committed
their deeds in a bestial manner not only against males of conscript age, but especially
against helpless old people, women and children. The number of the Orthodox that the Croats
have massacred and sadistically tortured to death is about three hundred thousand
(I have no dog in this fight, but have more sympathy for Serbs than for Croats because of
the way the have been treated by the U.S. Empire recently).
@Grahamsno(G64)
The AR camps and complete lack of forensic evidence at each of them is mentioned. I can see
why the focus is on Auschwitz because if Jews brought more attention to Treblinka it would be
obvious how fake the whole thing is.
@skrik
Dear Sir, it is inappropriate to quote oneself they say thus I will refer you back to my
original comment which you were kind enough to comment yourself. Sufficient to say I pointed
out that Ms. Yeager and her sidekick made fools out of themselves with their choice of Gen.
Jaruzelski's quote and have a nonchalant attitude towards facts when it comes to mass graves
of German atrocities victims.
In this context I can not help but also to point out that it is not the first time Ms.
Yeager wrote nonsense and not the first time to I call her out on that either.
Thus if anyone here is a peddler of taurus excretum it is Ms. Yeager who has a proven
track record of being one.
For this reason when she occasionally gets something right it is similar to a broken clock
showing the right time every twelve hours.
"Let the dead bury their dead". Instead of harping on such issues with a discussion that
never ends and is rather pointless, Europeans would do better to focus on the future and
reproduce more. Of course, "Holocaust denial" and similar speech criminalization laws would
have to go too, it's time, soon there will be no survivors alive, and it will hopefully be
forgotten like all wars. There's no need to keep talking about this things forever, let's
forgive and forget, and think about the future. If Europe becomes majority African and Arab
in the next 100 years, then what's the point of discussing what flavour of white killed which
flavour of white? It won't matter anymore I mean non-whites are already toppling Churchill
statues, and Churchill was until recently an "anti-fascist" and a hero of both leftists and
neo-cons.
".. .the only people denying the Holocaust are those with a serious learning
disability and poor attention span .. ."
and those poor, deluded people who prefer to have evidence , and not just
Hollywood films created by people with an agenda to push and a story to sell!
@Reger
Individual fates?
Anything to do with the Hollow-co$t narrative is suspect. What kind of "death camps" have
hospitals for internees? What kind of "death camps" have scrip for prisoners to spend at a
canteen? What kind of "death camps" have orchestras and theaters for internees? Why would
"death camps" record marriages and births? The Olympic size swimming pools and soccer fields
for internees at "death camps" were there, obviously, as another form of mass murder by
forcing the internees to swim until they drowned or run until they collapsed.
How about the individual fates of the women and children burned to death in the incendiary
bombing of Hamburg and Dresden, or the deaths of 1600 civilians who drowned when the Ruhr
Valley dams were bombed? More teenage girls named Anne died in one night of allied bombing
than ever died in concentration camps.
To paraphrase David Irving, more people died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than in
homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. It is indeed, unfortunate that people died, but the
Jewish "leadership" declared war on Germany in 1933. The deaths of the three people you named
is on their hands for scheming against the legitimate government of Germany.
Curious that the fanatical record keeping Nazis have no record of the amount of coke
needed to burn the numbers of alleged victims cremated at concentration camps. Meanwhile, the
Soviet archives released camp records are in line with the Red Cross estimates and Bletchley
Park transcripts. Obviously, they are all lying and Yad Vesham is correct.
@RT Grow
up. You are not in the court. You are not even in the court of public opinion. You are among
the Holocaust denial retards. You are one of them actually.
@Curmudgeon
I beg your pardon? There is a good chance I have more first-hand experience with socialism
(as Realsozialismus) then you have experience with anything at all.
* during 1918-1939 period, Yugoslavia was basically a softer version of Greater Serbia,
with all nations-except Slovenes- oppressed. Close to 400 Croats & ca. 2000 Muslims had
been killed by Serbian paramilitaries & government forces during "peaceful" period in the
1920s & 1930s. The turning point was assassination of Croatian leader Stjepan Radić,
a sort of Croatian Gandhi, by a Serb nationalist in Yugoslav parliament in 1928. This
convinced some Croats that any Yugoslavia was insufferable, and the most influential among
them was future Poglavnik/"Leader" Ante Pavelić, who emigrated & founded a
revolutionary terrorist organization ustaše (ca. 200-300 people).
* after the collapse of Yugoslavia in the April war 1941, situation in Croatia &
Bosnia and Herzegovina was something like a vacuum. No Croatian politician wanted to become
the head of state patronized by Nazi German authorities, but at the same time there was a
sense of jubilation: Croats got independent (in theory) country, after decades of Serbian
oppression. In this vacuum, Pavelić was installed by Hitler and Mussolini as a kind of
puppet. In this country, ca. 50-60% were Croats & more than 30% were Serbs (the rest were
Bosnian Muslims, considered to be Croats).
* Pavelić assumed power on April the 10th 1941. But even a week before that, Serb
paramilitaries had started killing Croats & some 200-400 people were killed in the
interregnum. After he had been installed, Pavelić actually dissolved parliament &
established a dictatorship; Croatia was crippled & many vital areas, especially in
Dalmatia, were given to Mussolini's Italy. Also, he introduced racial laws for Jews &
started to persecute Serbs- both as a revenge for their participation in royalist Yugoslavia
period terror & their atrocities during interregnum. In next few months perhaps 5-20,000
Serbs were killed by ustaše in various areas of NDH/Independent State of Croatia.
Basically, it was a terrorist regime & most Croats disapproved of it, but were
expecting to get rid of ustaše in some future & retain statehood under democratic
circumstances. So, Croats wanted a truly independent country.
* Serbs, being persecuted (along with Jews & Gypsies) rebelled on a massive scale in
the last quarter of 1941 & many areas of NDH had become virtually defunct. This resulted
in further Pavelić's dependence to Hitler. On the other hand, communist partisans, led
by a Croat, Josip Broz Tito, after their defeat in Serbia fled with remnants of their army to
the NDH territory. There, they found refuge among Serbs, while many of them defected to
royalist Četniks led by Serbian colonel Mihailović. Četniks had killed, during
1941, ca. 12-15,000 Muslim & Croat civilians, mostly in the eastern Bosnia regions.
From 1941-1945 there was a civil war in all of Yugoslavia, with various factions fighting
for different aims. In Croatia, more Croats had been coming to partisans, especially after
1943 (fall of Italy) & thus partisans became a respectable force. For instance, Croatia
had 5 partisan corpses (4 of them with clear Croatian majority), while Slovenia had 2, Bosnia
& Herzegovina 2, Serbia proper 2 etc.
* in may 1945, war was over & partisans had won. But, in 2- 6 weeks after the end of
war, they committed mass atrocities, killing ca. 80,000-130,000 Croatian soldiers &
civilians, perhaps 10,000 Serbian Četniks & up to 4,000 Slovenian white guards.
Modern unbiased historical investigations have dispelled many myths, especially those re
number of victims in Yugoslavia & NDH in particular. In sum, in all of Yugoslavia, ca.
500,000 Serbs had died unnatural deaths & this included some 300,000 Serbs in NDH. Of
these, perhaps over 100,000 had been killed by ustaše, while others died of typhoid,
were killed by Germans, Četniks etc. Among Croats, ca. 200- 250,000 died of unnatural
causes, virtually all of them in NDH on various sides. Percentage-wise, the biggest losses
were among Bosnian Muslims, over 80,000.
@utu
Bottom line is that the whole existing Jewish Holocaust narrative is not supported by the
evidence. And any competent detective would spot the inconsistencies and contrary evidence in
the overall narrative and conclude that either the witness is fabricating and embellishing
what actually happened, or very simply is lying.
That's not the same thing as saying no Jews were killed in Europe, or that I'd want to be
Jewish and in Europe in WWII. (Hell, I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere in Europe during
WWII period!) Rather, it's very clear that everybody was killing everybody else in
those places and at that time based on ethnicity, nationality, politics, being on the losing
side or what have you, including plain old greed, and that nobodies' hands were clean.
Warfare will do that.
That, and the subsequent coverups, denials and spinmeistering over the years by all actors
concerning massacres and reprisals, large scale thefts, organized starvations and ethnic
cleansing are more over embarrassment and concerns about reputations than anything else.
Likewise, the claiming of this, that or the other mass grave as your own is just as much
about economic advantage and fortune seeking as it is about validation.
Enough! It was 80 odd years ago. Learn about what happened, all that happened and why,
and to all peoples who were present, without favour given to an influential (for now) few.
Resolve that it was monstrous for all, and resolve that it ought not to happen again. And
then move on.
@peacewalker
This sort of opinion is as childishly chauvinistic now as it was in 1850, 1920, 1939 and
1990. Did you know that Eastern Germany has been only given to the Poland for temporary
administration by the Soviets? Notwithstanding the weird actions of the people in power in
the FRG, Poland's borders are defined by international law by the provisions of the Treaty of
Versailles to which Poland was a signatory party.
@GMC " The
normal Russians/Crimeans that I know that are jews are way cool folks – they even have
family is Israel but no big ego. Just normal Russians."
Nonsense. Jews are not Russians, period. Different ethnic group, different loyalties.
Given a brouhaha, you'll see which group they side with.
Bottom line is that the whole existing Jewish Holocaust narrative is not supported by
the evidence. And any competent detective would spot the inconsistencies and contrary
evidence in the overall narrative and conclude that either the witness is fabricating and
embellishing what actually happened, or very simply is lying.
This is stupid. It is very easy to calculate upper & lower limits of losses of various
European peoples during WW2, just by feeding the computer with pre-war & post-war census
data and taking into account border changes.
True, some figures overlap & there is a significant standard deviation for some
numbers. But, generally, overall picture is rather well established.
Nonsense, low IQ person. The burden of proof is on the person making the existential
claim, not on the person questioning it. I suggest opening a basic critical thinking book at
some point in your life.
Fact is that the evidence for the deliberate murder of 6,000,000 Jews is almost entirely
missing, apart from 'confessions' obtained under torture and the claims of self-interested
parties who stand something to gain.
Add to that any number of oddities.
– Official reports from the Red Army indicating that the area around Treblinka was
pastoral and undisturbed, contrasting with eyewitness accounts (by Jews) of skulls being
strewn everywhere.
– Red Cross records mentioning nothing of a mass murder campaign costing millions of
lives.
– Putin's comments that the Soviets transferred millions of Jews out of Poland
– The number of compensation claims registered with the German government reaching the
4 million mark, when the Nazis estimated the total number of Jews in Nazi occupied territory
was smaller than this.
– The physical impossibility of outdoor cremation of millions of people using barbeques
made from train rails and stacks of wood (which magically worked, even in the snow and
rain).
– The lack of cross examination at the Nuremburg tribunal.
It smells mightily of a Jewish fantasy enabling them to guilt trip the Germans, cover up
British war crimes, and justify the theft of Arab land.
Obviously the holocaust must be fake or there wouldn't be laws against researching it, or
disputing different aspects of it. Historical events that happened have no laws forbidding
questioning or debating them. We can argue over how many died at Stalingrad, or in Hiroshima.
We can question the number who starved in the Potato Famine, or from Smallpox in American
Indian tribes. But one so-called "historical" event must never be questioned? Ridiculous. The
fact that laws force one to believe in it, makes me doubt it completely.
@Grahamsno(G64)
I asked Ron Unz to put the title "Some Answers to the Mystery of the "Missing Jews" on the
article; the original title is the sub-title you see here. I think it's perfectly justified
– note the word "Some." Not 'The answer' or 'An answer', but only 'Some answers', which
in retrospect over the last 10 years it does provide. If the communists murdered thousands
and hundreds of thousands of Eastern European peoples, as you say, doesn't that impact the
WWII death toll and the "missing jews"?
Holocaust believers like yourself have never been able to show the existence of the
remains of those millions of bodies you say the German's killed. In light of that it's
amazing anyone can still defend this cult of death.
That explains why you are reduced to personal insult, ad hominem and distractions like
"what about the AR camps," instead of explaining why only Axis forces have been unearthed in
mass graves since the war's end, and no Allied forces. That includes no Jews.
Also, FYI (and others), "Revisionism" is not something dictated from above by certain
"professionals" but is individual works by individuals who study various aspects of history
and put their work out there for scrutiny. Not something you are capable of appreciating, I
know. So far, you have said nothing that debunks this article that is based on documented
reality.
Jews are missing only in the Holocaust deniers' minds.
Jews historically have had no homeland and thus feel no attachment or sentimental value to
the lands upon which they live. It is therefore not that hard to speculate that once news of
the evil Nazis approaching reached them that they packed up and moved further east or west to
avoid getting mixed up in the actual fighting.
We see this mentality at full effect even today when millions of whites and blacks are
sent around the world to kill, maim and occupy foreign nations while the jews who profit from
it all stay at home in their million dollar mansions and closed off ghettos demanding to be
given the best of the special treatment for their eternal victimhood.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of abscence-but is rather objective evidence of the
non-existence of such a claim or cause of which one has been supportive or others forced to
accept as truth.
@utuGrow up. You are not in the court. You are not even in the court of public opinion. You
are among the Holocaust denial retards. You are one of them actually.
Poor little utu – is he a Jew terrorist – or one of the feeble-minded
gentiles, who falls for the Stockholm Syndrome Jew victim "six-million" lie. He is clearly on
the wrong side of history.
As is abundantly clear from this article and its comments – many if not most of
central Europe's ethnic peoples experienced group murder. 55,000,000 people died during WWII.
Jews where just one tribe of many.
Instead of forgiving and healing all – the Jews have grabbed all the sick
"victimhood glory" for themselves and used it as a cudgel to do even more killing in the
Middle East.
Maintaining the "six-million" lie has cost America its cohesion and Western idealism
– we are divided today into identity groups warring with each other -- all to maintain
terroristic Jew political control, aimed at sustaining the "six-million" lie. Anyone who
dares to disagree with the Jew lie – is terrorized and ostracized from society.
So what is it for little utu – Jew terrorist or fool?
A fool can intellectually grow – a morally poor Jew who supports "the lie" is
hopeless.
@Robjil
Judging by the aggressive theft of Ukraine farmland for pennies on the dollar by Chabad,
instrumentalized by Nuland's lackeys at the Dept of State, and the consequent dispossession
of Ukrainian farm people à la Palestinians in Palestine, my guess is that Israel intends
to use the Ukraine as the "breadbasket" of the JWO in Europe, just as a de-industrialized
United States, with its white population exterminated, will become the JWOs breadbasket in
the Western Hemisphere.
His aggregate numbers (in Table 2 on p. 10) are consistent with the numbers from the
Jewish Virtual Library. But what's curious are the numbers for Eastern Europe (i.e. Imperial
Russia/Soviet Union and Poland primarily) The American population exploded between 1880 and
1939. That's the well-known turn-of-the century influx. It's safe to assume that about 5M of
the American number was due to immigration (applying a reasonable 0.5% growth rate to the
1880 population), and that it was mainly from Eastern Europe. That would mean that the stock
of Eastern European Jews grew from 5.7M in 1880 to about 8.2M+5M = 13.2M in 1939, an
annualized growth rate of 1.4%. This is simply not believable, given the chaos afflicting
Eastern Europe during this time period. If we apply the 0.9% growth rate claimed for world
Jewish inter-war population by the JVL (probably high but not absurdly so) to the 5.7M
Eastern European stock, and subtract off the 5M that emigrated to America, we get an Eastern
European Jewish population in 1939 of around 4.7M, which is at least 3.5M less than commonly
claimed. (It was probably even less than 4.7M, given emigration to Palestine.) World Jewish
population in 1939 was probably around 16.7M-3.5M = 13.2M, not 16.7M, implying Jewish losses
during the war of around 2.2M. This number is consistent with German documentation re. the AR
camps, Auschwitz, and the EG shootings, as well as Red Cross documentation about the Western
camps. It's highly likely that both the Soviet and Polish 1939 numbers were exaggerated by at
least 1M each. The numbers for the eastern part of the old Austro-Hungarian empire should
also be viewed skeptically. (The 1931 Polish census claiming over 3M Jews is well-known, but
there was a 1921 census claiming 2M Jews; there is no way the Polish Jewish population grew
at a 4% annualized rate in that decade.)
Hitting the holohoax (oops I mean "holocaust™") head-on doesn't work because of the
jew-controlled media which has declared "holocaustianity™" to be the new worldwide
"state religion" from which no dissension from its "orthodoxy" is permitted.
The only way to counter "holocaustianity™" is to point out the scientific and
engineering impossibility of every "holocaust™" claim.
Let's look at a number of claims that have been made and have been ingrained in
"holocaust™" orthodoxy:
-- using "bug spray" (Zyklon B) as an execution agent (ha ha)
-- "gas chambers" with ordinary wooden doors, not gas-tight doors
-- "gas chambers" with no means to ventilate the chambers after "operation"
-- "gas chamber" chimney not connected to anything
-- "blood spurting out of the ground" for weeks and months
-- "crematoria stacks with visible flames" (not possible) crematoria burn clean
-- "thousands of bodies cremated per day" (not possible)
-- "multiple bodies" in one "muffle" to "speed up" operations
-- "lampshades, soap and shrunken heads", oh my
-- "the ability to tell when jews are being cremated by the smell or color of smoke"
-- "claimed burial grounds not being permitted to be disturbed" per jewish "law"
NONE of these claims are possible or valid and can be easily debunked using sound scientific
and engineering principles.
I have been thrown out (asked to leave) those "jewish freak shows" called
"holocaust™"museums for merely attempting to point out these facts.
@jbwilson24It smells mightily of a Jewish fantasy enabling them to guilt trip the Germans, cover up
British war crimes, and justify the theft of Arab land.
Say jbwilson24 -- did you kill any Jews -- I didn't!
Hmm -- then why are we being held guilty? 98% of everybody alive today was not even living
during the war. Yet, the Jews act like we are ALL guilty for WWII.
Using a vile false guilt trip, the Jews have seized power over the West.
We are coming to understand this ploy – human nature does not like lies – it
rebels.
p.s. Jew use of the Stockholm Syndrome, rules the West. (terror first – claim
victimization second)
Why do you write "Polish historical interpretations" knowing that after WWII this so called
'Polish' regime was infested by (appointed) Stalin Jews and few Polish commies with
suspicious past? *
*During Poland's partition many Jews bought for cents on dollar or acquired (for
snitching) names, estates and noble titles of Polish patriots shipped to Siberia.
Jan 30, 2016 Operation Reinhard: The Murder of Polish Jewry
How did the horror of the Nazi death camps evolve? Auschwitz didn't just sprout from the
ground one day. There was an "evolution" of the murder machinery, and a cast of diabolical
characters most people have never heard of.
@trickster
But than all Hitler was stupid, because he did not figure out that eventually will come to
that.
All Germans were so stupid that they did not know that number of roads in Ukraine and Russia
that in case of rain did not change to mud holes could be counted on fingers.
And even those were no match of via Apia of ancient Rome.
@peacewalker
Impressive your information about the origin of Stettin and Breslau. But as far as I can see
through a fast look at wikipedia, what you say seems to be at least a bis misleading. The
history seems to be quite complicated with really lot of changes. They say about Breslau that
the "Wandalenstamm der Silinger" (a German tribe) settled there between the 4 and 5 Century
and Slavs came about 1 or 2 centuries later. Much later there was a Polish domination.
Breslau was destroyed by the Mongols in 1241 and after that rebuilt by German settlers. In
1261 Breslau received the right of cityship (? Stadtrecht) by the German city of Magdeburg.
The history of Stettin is even more complicated, but wikipedia says that it was founded by
the fusion of German and Polish settlements ("Die Stadt Stettin entstand aus einer
pomoranischen und zwei benachbarten deutschen Siedlungen" = The city Stettin has originated
from a pomoranian and two neighbour German settlements).
Let me just point out, that mass graves with Polish victims of German mass executions
were located among other places at:
Palimiry [sic], Las Sękocinski, Las kabacki, Laski and many, many others locations
such as for example Ponary (outside of Poland's post WW II borders in present-day
Lithuania).
Why hasn't the general public heard of these incredible mass graves? Except for a little
commotion at Palmiry and Ponary, they are Polish fiction. The Germans assembled an
international team of experts to exhume the Katyn graves and publish their findings. The
Poles kept their exhumations, if there were any, all in the family.
Palmiry massacre, Wiki – "After the war, the Polish Red Cross , supported by
the Chief Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland (pretty sure
this is Soviet), began the search and exhumation process in Palmiry. The work was carried out
between 25 November and 6 December 1945, and later from 28 March until the first months of
summer 1946. Thanks to Adam Herbański and his subordinates from the Polish Forest
Service , who in the years of occupation were risking their own lives to mark the places
of execution, Polish investigators were able to find 24 mass graves. More than 1700 corpses
were exhumed, but only 576 of them were identified. Later Polish historians were able
to identify the names of another 480 victims.[17][50] It is possible that some graves still
lie undiscovered in the forest near Palmiry.[11]
Ponary massacre, Wiki – "The total number of victims by the end of 1944 was between
70,000 and 100,000. According to post-war exhumation by the forces of Soviet 2nd
Belorussian Fron t the majority (50,000–70,000) of the victims were Polish and
Lithuanian Jews from nearby Polish and Lithuanian cities, while the rest were primarily Poles
(about 20,000) and Russians (about 8,000).[2]
(No more information on this Polish-created page about the exhumation/identification process.
It goes straight to the more extensive commemoration/memorial monuments section.) Then ends
with:
"The murders at Paneriai are currently being investigated by the Gdańsk branch of the
Polish Institute of National Remembrance [1] and by the Genocide and Resistance
Research Center of Lithuania .[27] The basic facts about memorial signs in the Paneriai
memorial and the objects of the former mass murder site (killing pits, tranches, gates,
paths, etc.) are now presented in the webpage created by the Vilna Gaon State Jewish
Museum."
This why the general public doesn't know of these sites – they have not been
legitimately vetted. Yale's Timothy Snyder is a big believer though.
The sad thing is that the Final Solution to the Jewish problem has not yet been achieved.
I mean the problem of the presence of non-Jews in the world, a major problem for the Jews.
Not finally solved yet, but getting close.
There have been some great achievements since earliest times. One was Moses's great
success in tricking the stupid Midianites a number of times before finally exterminating
them, as recounted between Exodus Ch. 2 and the end of Numbers. Another was Joshua bar Nun's
fabulous achievement exterminating most of the Canaanites. For the time, the greatest
achievement bar none!
But the great achievement of the Jewish Dark Age of 200–400 AD, the killing of 6
million Jews by the Jews, the 6 million Hellenistic Jews by the Talmudic Jews, outshines
everything to date. Done at a time when the world population was tiny!
That must be done, the killing of non-Talmudic Jews must be done, as Maimonides wrote a
few centuries later. But the best subsequent achievement seems to have been the killing of
about a million non-Talmudic Jews in Iberia, greater Spain. Maybe fewer. Many escaped the
peninsula. Many Karaites survived. Or some did, count unclear.
So far, at least till 1948, and since the Cyrene massacres of the 2nd century, stopped by
the Romans, they have not had the power to kill non-Jews in any large numbers, could only
encourage wars among them. And undermine their society with their lobbying skills and
organized financing. But they are immensely powerful today in America and Europe. The Final
Solution may be close.
@Bardon
Kaldian Serbian lies are only matched by coatian lies (jews/muslims lies are out of
competition simple because they belive they can say anything to non-jew/non-muslim and do a
right thing).
Serbian lies can't change fact that every single sentence from Bardon post is one big fat
lie.
Hints: census from 1931 counted people by religion(ortodox, catolics, muslims, ), census from
1948 counted serbs, croats, slovenians, montenegrins, macedonians and 'minorities'. Muslims
are counted as serbian or croatians. He can't even say those numbers for current croatian
territory (hint: about 90k serbs less than ortodox and 300k croats more than catolics,despite
200k croats killed or expelled by comunists)
Counting persons with serious mental problems with zero influence as 'serbian ideologues' is
just fun.
@Curmudgeon
said:
"What kind of "death camps" have hospitals for internees? What kind of "death camps" have
scrip for prisoners to spend at a canteen? What kind of "death camps" have orchestras and
theaters for internees? Why would "death camps" record marriages and births? The Olympic size
swimming pools and soccer fields for internees at "death camps""
– Here's more info. on the big one in the "holocaust"narrative, so called "death
camp / extermination camp" Auschwitz
[MORE]
– An "extermination camp" where thousands of Jews chose to stay behind when
the Germans left.
– An "extermination camp" where most of the inmates, more thousands, chose to
leave WITH the Germans.
– An "extermination camp" where 1,500,000 human remains supposedly exist, but in fact
no such remains exist.
– An "extermination camp" where many Jews gave birth.
– An "extermination camp" where the absurdly alleged homicidal 'gas chambers' could
not have worked as alleged, as proven repeatedly, scientifically impossible.
– An "extermination camp" where fake 'gas chambers' were "reconstructed" AFTER THE
WAR.
– An "extermination camp" where detailed aerial photos of the period show nothing
that is alleged to have been happening.
– An "extermination camp" where there are even obvious, laughable attempts to tamper
with aerial photos that make a mockery of the fake story.
see:
– Auschwitz war time aerial photos, tampered with to fit the fake story ,
ex.:
Drawn in 'Auschwitz Jews being marched to gas chambers', ON A ROOF . –
An "extermination camp" where there are countless Jew "survivors", yet the fake narrative
says 'the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on.'
-An "extermination camp" where so called "survivors" say the most impossible and
conflicting things that do not hold up to scrutiny, would be laughed out of a legit court
of law.
This is stupid. It is very easy to calculate upper & lower limits of losses of
various European peoples during WW2, just by feeding the computer with pre-war &
post-war census data and taking into account border changes.
But it is precisely the border changes for those countries and population movements
occurred within those areas that makes it difficult if not impossible to determine with any
accuracy what population changes within the area those borders include at different times
mean. It is, obvious, is ity not, that the "Poland" of 1939 is not the "Poland" of 1946, is
it not? And that it's ridiculous to draw any DEFINITIVE conclusion based on the ethnic group
distribution included within the boundaries of those "countries" between those periods,
especially when Russians moved substsantial numbers out of the area they occupied from 1939
to 1941, and then Germans were moved out of areas that became Polich after WWII, etc., etc.
and also moved people into and out of those areas when no one really knows the NUMBERS
INVOLVED.
It's years ago since I lookeed at the numbers Hillsberg cited, but I remenber dismissing
them at the time because they look conjectural at best.
@Carolyn
Yeager There are two ancient Slavic tribes Czechs and Moravian s. Capital of Czechs is
Praha (Prague)
Capitol of Moravian s is Brno. Slovaks at one time were part of Great Moravian empire.
Morava is east of Czechia, (As is its capital Brno, and not south as you claim.)
Slovakia is East of Moravia.
Morava is river and the tribe was named after river. River Morava joins Danjub
at Slovakia.
@peacewalker
said:
"I just don't know where to start. Whole "article" is such a BS. OK, let's start from
beginning then"
– Let's start with you actually reading the article.
– Then show us the millions upon millions of human remains that are said by those
like you to be in specific, known locations.
– After that, tell us how the absurd 'Nazi gas chambers' supposedly worked.
– Your cited sources give no proof.
It's curious that people like yourself actually want the alleged millions to be dead.
You should be happy to hear that millions of your brethren were not murdered.
"In the case of this latest and largest mass grave (2008), no clothing, eye glasses or gold
teeth were found. It thus appears that they were completely stripped before they were
killed." My German mother and her family began fleeing west in the last months of the war.
They lived in the German city Brieg (now called Brzeg under Polish rule). It's close to the
bigger city Breslau (now called Wroclaw under Polish rule). She was captured near Pilsen
(known as Plzen under Czech rule). The Red Army arrived. My mother was part of a group of
women being held and the women were forced to strip naked and they were humiliated. This is
what my crying mother told me roughly about 40 years ago. She was not raped. She's gone now
and despite this sad story was an upbeat and generally happy person. The Americans were also
there. I believe they took the area first and then withdrew and turned the area over to the
Russians and Czechs. My mother was able to escape and eventually settled in Bavaria for
several years before moving to the USA. If there are numerous cases of victims being
stripped, I wonder if this could be tied to a particular army or nationality. Or was it was
done by more than one army or nationality?
@the
shadow I agree. From my reading the transfers of population for reasons of ethnicity,
colonisation (eg of the Wartheland), slave labour, not to mention the theft of 'aryan'
children from Poles made for total confusion at the end of the war. The stories of witnesses
always mention fellow victims from all parts of Europe and people travelling in all
directions.
Re the numbers I can only repeat the wise quip of Christopher Isherwood in an argument about
the number of victims; he said to his opponent: 'What are you? In real estate?"
Why not just say Mahatma Austrian Hitler left no victims, including 20s-30s-40s Germans
(400,000 to 600,000 by most accounts, murdered by the NSDAP) and espouse, more important,
Germans were the only victims in WW2? Go for it!
The NSDAP brought God to Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Memel, Denmark. Norway,
Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Crete, North Africa, USSR,
etc.? Hitler was quite the evangelist. God (in that hymnal) is named Adolf. A deity without
territorial aspirations but nonetheless great coincidental appetite and digestive ability.
And with a post-war score to settle with German Churches.
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker" ("Ich
gehe mit traumwandlerischer Sicherheit den Weg, den mich die Vorsehung gehen
heißt") -Adolf Hitler 15 Mar 1936 Munich
He "sleepwalked" Germany into catastrophic World War, then attacked an ally in what became
a winter campaign 1941-42 lacking winter uniforms and operational gear. Incompetence
paramount. Nothing to do with Jews, though by all counts – as in Poland –many
were murdered (sorry Carolyn).
"The war against Russia is an important chapter in the struggle for existence of the
German nation. It is the old battle of the Germanic against the Slav peoples, of the
defense of European culture against Moscovite-asiatic inundation, and the repulse of Jewish
Bolshevism. The objective of this battle must be the destruction of present-day Russia and
it must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity. Every military action must be
guided in planning and execution by an iron will to exterminate the enemy mercilessly and
totally. In particular, no adherents of present Russian-Bloshevik system are to be
spared."
– Generaloberst Erich Hoepner, Orders to 4th Panzer Group Commanders in advance of
Barbarossa 2 May 1941 [Burleigh 'The Third Reich' p. 521]
A year later at Stalingrad 42-43, same problems, Hitler doubled-down plus some.
"The Führer commands that on entering the city the entire male population should
be eliminated since Stalingrad, with its convinced Communist population of one million, is
particularly dangerous."
– Adolf Hitler to Sixth Army 2 Sep 1942 [Beevor 'The Second World War' p.356]
Genocide? There you have cold hard fact.
There's more Carolyn. It's against Germans! 9 Nov 1942 Hitler orders 150,000 artillery and
transport horses in Sixth Army be sent several hundred kilometers to the rear, ostensibly to
save transporting fodder to the front. It deprives all unmotorized (75% of 6th Army forces)
divisions of mobility. Ten days later Soviets launch "Operation Uranus', a 'Kesselschalcht'
encirclement worthy of Bismarck and von Moltke.
By 23 Nov 1942 the Sixth Army is cut-off in pocket, destined to starve and freeze as
Hitler orders "Sixth Army stand firm in spite of temporary encirclement". His solution to the
crisis is to designate the Sixth Army "Fortress Stalingrad" and order (24 Nov) holding the
front "whatever the circumstances". No clarity on food, munitions, medical care or strategic
relief. None comes.
Germans knew better.
"I am beyond caring. Two of my brothers were sacrificed in Stalingrad and it was
quite useless. And here we have the same."
–Soldat to SanUff [Senior Medical Officer] Walter Klein, Kampfgruppe Heintz, Field
Dressing Station near St-Lô, Normandie 26 Jul 1944 [Beevor 'D-Day' p.353]
That's the legacy you (Ron and Carolyn) embrace? Good luck!
@anonlb
Dumb (my advice- don't mess with someone who knows what he's talking about. You'll turn out
to be a laughing stock ).
In 1931 census people were counted by religion & language. The South Slavic "language"
was a bizarre official combination of the Slovene, Croat & Serbian (no one then, except
Croatian linguist Stjepan Ivšić, had recognized Macedonian language). Other
languages like Hungarian, German, Italian, Slovak, Czech, Albanian were clearly the languages
of those peoples. So, one could clearly distinguish between Croats, Serbs, Bosnian Muslims ..
by simply looking at their religion & mother tongue (in that case, weird
"Sloveno-Croato-Serbian").
During the Communist census in 1948, people just said what they were, nationally.
Catholics- if not Slovene speaking- were Croats; Orthodox were either Serbs, Montenegrins or
Macedonians (there were preserved censuses from 1931, so one could monitor county
fluctuations of population); BH Muslims were mostly "Yugoslavs undetermined" (some of them
said they were either Croats or Serbs, due to political pressures, but in next 2-3 decades
were simply written out of this census).
Also, there were tiny minorities of Catholic Serbs (ca. 8,800) and Orthodox Croats
(9,300)- but they don't mean anything, in comparison with these millions.
So, if you try to argue, rather use convincing arguments than a hysterical blather.
@the
shadow Virtually all modern works on victimology had taken into account borders shifts so
that victims (or potential victims) couldn't be counted twice (or thrice). It is reflected
even in such a wishy-washy source as Wikipedia.
Morava is east of Czechia, (As is its capital Brno, and not south as you claim.)
The article is mentioning Czechoslovakia , not the Czech Republic (note the map),
and only in relation to the treatment of its German citizens in 1945-6. There is nothing
inaccurate in my comment that you're referring to; Brno is definitely in the south of the
country compared to Usti.
@maz10 I'd
doubt it. The biggest fraud about socialism was the promotion of Marxism (communism) as being
socialism. I'm not saying Marx didn't have followers, but the majority of his contemporaries
rejected his state owns all views as being totalitarian. Communism is the obverse side of the
coin of finance capitalism. Both seek to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few –
relatively speaking.
Clifford Douglas, who invented the Social Credit movement, worked closely with the Guild
Socialists in Britain. While ultimately rejecting their views, he recognized that they
weren't interested in state ownership, were not opposed to competition, but were opposed to
finance controlling production and trade. By the way, Douglas was opposed to finance
capitalism as well.
I repeat: your local co-op is socialist. Every member has an equal say through the single
share allowed to be purchased; the board of directors is elected by the membership; the
profits shared are based on your participation level; and it competes with privately owned
businesses, including corporations.
@utuHere is an excerpt (one of MANY) from the Jewish press showing that Jewish American groups
have long tried to stop the U.S. Congress from recognizing the genocide committed against
Christian Armenians by Turkey:
Every year on April 24, the day that Armenians commemorate the killings, a resolution
calling for the use of the controversial term is proposed in Congress and then beaten back.
Some Jewish groups claim credit for ensuring that such a resolution never passes.
Jewish advocacy groups, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, B'nai Brith and American Jewish Committee
"have been working with the Turks on this issue" for more than 15 years, said Yola Habif
Johnston, director for foundations and community outreach at Jinsa. "The Jewish lobby has
quite actively supported Turkey in their efforts to prevent the so-called Armenian genocide
resolution from passing," she said.
Showdown Set in 'Genocide' Debate
Rebecca Spence, The Jewish Daily Forward
Sept. 2, 2006
1. STETTIN is GERMANIZED name for Polish name SZCZECIN, not the other way around.
2. Same story with Wroclaw (for short period of time known as Breslau).
What's your point?
New York was New Amsterdam before the British took over. Strasbourg was Strasburg before
Louis XIV annexed Alsace and Lorraine. Istanbul was Constantinople before the Muslims decided
to change the name. Novgorod was an East Norse settlement. At one time, the Baltic was a
"Swedish lake" and Poland was occupied by the Swedes with a Swedish king sitting in Poland.
In the mists of time, Jerusalem was Uru-shalem before the chosenites arrived from Yemen.
Borders and place names have changed through out the recorded history of mankind. Poland now
claims famous Germans were Polish. Nikolaus Kopernikus, the famous German astronomer, is now
called Mikolaj Kopernik. He lived in Thorn (now Torun'), never spoke a word of Polish, and
published his works in Latin.
The Poles were happy to be Chamberlain's dupes in starting a war with Germany, and ramped
it up with the ethnic cleansing of Germans in the German territories it occupied after
the November 11, 1918 Armistice was signed. When war starts, no ones hands are clean, but the
Poles, like the chosenites continue to play the victim.
For those that have looked at the movement of people from the late 20s to 1939, it would not
stand up to a 10 minute audit. It is obvious to me, and written by H.G. Wells in his book
"The Shape of Things to Come" that the Dazig corridor was built to start the war as Polish
and Soviet troops, and it is well documented, were killing ethnic Germans since 1938. This
was considered a brilliant move by Wells of the Wilson Administration who wiped out 60-70
million, no only due to war but the fact that it was the US out of Ft. Riley which is
documented in the Wichita Observer to be the first place that ever ha this flu of which
almost 10% died.
It is known that the US created the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks through NYC with Schiff,
Baruch, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, Harriman and others) and also set up through the War Industries
Board, by a Jewish Marrano named Samuel Bush to load the Lusitania up with "small" munitions
of which Cunard was warned as were documents not to go on the ship as the US had been
supplying the filth ridden UK with weapons but was all but defeated and Germany offered a
peace plan that was beneficial to all. The Balfour Declaration, (Read "History of Zionism
1600-1918" by Nahum Sokolow and you will find in the forward that Arthur Balfour was also a
Marrano which is pointed out specifically), was enough for the monied interests of the US to
put America into war by lies. Benjamin Freedman's speech at the Willard hotel sums it up
well.
The US, USSR, UK and China are all tied together and all are oligarch with a fraudulent
opposition as one can figure out when reading "Red Symphony" of Rothschild. All nations are
nothing more than corporations that have gone into receivership and are owned as assets just
as recently stated by the central banks and the monetization of all creation. Those that have
no reverence for all living things and respect for life or planet except for their love of
money that their contempt for creation represents is now off the charts as all institutions
are corrupt.
Bias of Priene – all men are wicked and most are evil. That was a statement of one
of the greats, of the 7 sages and has now come to a point where all life may disappear in a
few years through poisoning every aspect of life and the list is long, geoengineering,
medicine/vaccine/pharmaceuticals, big ag, idiocy in programming – (listen to JFK
condemn amusement and the need for a well informed society), no limits of committing
atrocities to life itself as the web of life is hanging by a thread. Education, think tanks,
NGOs, government leaders they all are evil and are backed up by a putrid judicial system.
@Carolyn
Yeager You are funny! And I do not need to take a look at the map. You do!
If you make a right angle triangle from Usti nad labem and Brno you do find out you will
find out that distance from Usti to Brno is twice as long eastward than southward.
So you are in error.
Authors claimed they can not find any example of documented mass grave of polish
citizens.
What the authors said is, "The only known mass grave of Poles was the work of the Soviet
Red Army, led by the NKVD, in the Katyn Forest in Soviet Russia. Long blamed on Germany, the
responsibility for this genocidal act is now placed where it belongs. Ironically, the only
mass gravesites found on Polish territory have been of German civilians."
What you provided in Comment 11 ( http://lasszpegawski.pl/in-english/%5D is not
documented, it's only stories. Have these alleged graves been officially exhumed and the
remains counted and examined? It doesn't say so.
This one at the INR about Dachau is another Polish nothing-burger. By putting forth these
nonsense pages as evidence of the atrocities you claim, you only make yourself a laughing
stock.
@Petermx
Strange story. Sorry to hear of your mother's humiliation but what you write makes no sense
to me. What was your mother doing in Plzen at the end of the war? Captured by whom? There was
no Red army in Plzen and American troops left in November 1945. If your mother was supposedly
fleeing west then she would have landed in Dresden where most refugees from Wroclaw went but
not in Plzen. Caroline Yeager and you have obvious deficiencies in geography, which is a
strong indications that most of the stories, ventilated here, are simply made up.
@Curmudgeon
Kopernik did not have a even a drop of German blood in him. And he was not an astronomer.
He was a polish monk. He did study the solar system as a hobby.
He was first who did claim that all planets rotate around the Sun.
Galileo did only confirm the Koperniks theory only one hundred years after .
Galileo did have already a telescope. Kopernik did not!
@Petermx
Thanks for sharing your story, Peter. There is nothing that moves me and shakes me up more
than stories of the German expellees as they trudged and fled to the West in those terrible
months. I'm so glad your mother made it and lived to have you, tell you her story, and have a
good life. Such strength. I did some radio broadcasts with a certain Andreas Wesserle whose
family left German Slovakia and reached Bavaria, where they suffered terrible living
condition and had practically no food for several years. And they were better off than most!!
The stories he tells are shocking.
You might enjoy hearing him tell of this time with his family; he is one of my favorite
guests ever! So smart, and such a good storyteller! https://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-dr-andreas-wesserle-german-holocaust-1944-46 https://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-devastated-germany-1946-52
I know the Americans were the first to reach Pilsen. And both they and the British felt
they owed Uncle Joe practically anything he asked for! I don't know the answer to your
question about stripping, but I think it was pretty common, in order to take all the
valuables. Every piece of clothing was valuable in those times, plus eyeglasses, false teeth,
anything like that.
The author is neoliberal apologists, who use idiotic cliché about democratization to
cover neoliberal wolfs teens and appetite. Neoliberalism means impoverishment of countries like
Russia. so Putin actions are logical: he defends interests of Russian people against
international financial oligarchy. Experience of countries like Ukraine and Libya are vivid
examples of what financial oligarchy can do to the countries which do not resists conversion into
debt slaves.
McFaul of course was a color revolution specialist, who tried to unleash White color
revolution in 2011-2012. But he was actually a gift to Russians, as he proved to be a complete
and utter idiot, not a skillful diplomat. After EuroMaydan in 2014 neoliberal fifth column in
Russia was decimated and seized to exist as a political force.
"Russians," says Stent, "have at best been reluctant Europeans" (45). They need and admire
Western technology but managed to miss the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment,
and never developed a middle class and a democracy. Putin himself is a "wary European," who
fails "to understand that Europe's successful modernization was a product of both a free market
economy and a democratic political system based on the rule of law." More appealing to him is
China's model of "authoritarian modernization" (52).
Moreover, he is suspicious of the expansion of the European Union, its Eastern Partnership
Initiative (EPI, 2009), and its overtures for former Soviet states to join the EPI or EU.
Disputes over the signing of such an Association Agreement with Ukraine in 2013 exploded into
the Maidan movement, the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the war in eastern Ukraine, and
economic sanctions against Russia. China soon replaced Europe as Russia's largest trading
partner. Instead of President Mikhail Gorbachev's dream of a 'common European home,' Russia has
become the major opponent of European unity, a promoter of Brexit, and an ally of the
anti-liberal axis of 'take-our-country-back' right-wing populist and neo-authoritarian European
parties and governments. Putin is indiscriminate about cultivating allies and has established
friendly relations with a rogues' gallery of strongmen and authoritarian politicians that
includes among others Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, Silvio Berlusconi, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, Bashar al-Assad, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman, Narendra Modi, and
Donald J. Trump. But at the same time he has worked to establish ties with moderate and
centrist leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel.
As scholar and practitioner, Angela Stent is at her best when elaborating the specificities
of Russian dealings with friends and foes. Her chapter on NATO expansion -- "The 'Main
Opponent'" (Putin's words) -- is a judicious and critical review of policies that redivided
Europe and propelled Russia through the logic of a security dilemma to re-engage in offensive
strategies from rearmament to hybrid warfare. Yet while acknowledging that Russia has genuine
security concerns about NATO's moves eastward, she reverts to the notion that Russian
ideological constants are key to the conflict between East and West.
Russia has not, over the past quarter century, been willing to accept the rules of the
international order that the West hoped it would. Those included acknowledging the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the post-Soviet states and supporting a liberal world order that
respects the right to self-determination. Russia continues to view the drivers of international
politics largely through a nineteenth-century prism. Spheres of influence are more important
than the individual rights and sovereignty of smaller countries. It is virtually impossible to
reconcile the Western and Russian understanding of sovereignty. For Putin, what counts is power
and scale, not rules (137-138).
Stent does not share the default view of some of her fellow Putinologists, among them Masha
Gessen and Michael McFaul, who see almost every malevolent deed of Russian policy as stemming
from one grim personality. She argues instead that Putin and more generally Kremlin policies
are the effusion of something deeply Russian. Like the work of many other analysts of Soviet
and Russian foreign policy behavior, however, the book often neglects or underplays the
intersubjective effects on Kremlin actions, the ways in which initiatives by the more powerful
West precipitate reactions by the East -- NATO expansion and European and American recognition
of Kosovo independence being among the clearest examples.
Losing the West, much of East Central Europe, the Baltic countries, Georgia, and Ukraine,
Russia turned eastward toward Eurasia, to the former South of the USSR, a region that Stent
argues "has been an essential component of [Putin's] main goal restoring Russia as a great
power" (142). He wants, as did Yeltsin, the West to recognize Russia's "sphere of privileged
interests" in the so-called "Near Abroad," where it has "civilizational commonalities" with
former Soviet states (144-145). To the Kremlin the Near Abroad is contested with the West, and
losing it would severely jeopardize Russia's security. Military arrangements, like the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and economic collaboration in the Eurasian
Economic Union (EEU) have bound several republics, notably Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, to
Russia. In recent years several states, notably Moldova, have gravitated closer to Moscow,
while others, like Turkestan, maintain a guarded distance.
Substantive chapters review Russian relations with Ukraine, China, Japan, the Middle East,
and the United States. Putin's greatest success came in Syria, where he took advantage of the
Obama and Trump administrations' ambivalence about their role in the civil war. Putin sided
with Assad and, along with Iran and its proxies, propelled the brutal dictator to victory over
myriad rebels. For a time he solidified relations with Erdoğan's Turkey, but by 2019 the
two potential allies were at loggerheads both in Syria and Libya. Playing a relatively weak
hand vis-à-vis Europe, China, and the United States, Putin managed to deploy limited
resources to become the principal extra-regional player in the conflict-riven Near East. Given
Trump's reluctance to go to war or remain on the front line, Putin deftly filled the vacuum
left by American confusion and incompetence.
Reading Putin's World , one can see how Putin, successful in some places, bogged down
in others, and threatened in still others, has both increased Russian prestige and extended his
influence while deepening Russia's economic and diplomatic isolation and elevating global
suspicions as to its nefarious actions, from poisonings to election interference. Benefiting
from the gullibility and ignorance of the occupant of the White House, he can sit back and
observe the chaos launched by the Trump administration. But unpredictability should not calm a
realist's mind, and Putin is forced to deal with the contradictory cascade of attitudes and
activities emanating from Washington: friendly personal relations between the two leaders, the
series of sanctions placed on the Russians, the bizarre actions of Trump and his cronies in
Ukraine, unilateral abrogation of arms controls, withdrawal from the Paris Accords on climate
control and the Iranian nuclear agreement, the precipitate withdrawal from Syria, and the
impulsive assassination of high Iranian and Iraqi officials.
Stent ends the book with an assessment of how Russia's strongman has reasserted his
country's role on the world stage while at the same time worsening relations with the West and
facing a renewed arms race and the resurrection of harsh Cold War-like representations of his
country. "Putin has achieved his major objectives . The world can no longer ignore [Russia]. It
is respected -- and feared" (346). In much of the world he is a more attractive figure than his
"partner" Trump. Stent is confident that the West can work with Putin, but "the West has to
recognize what Russia is -- and not what it would like Russia to be" (356). Russia's views of
the world and of its interests have to be taken seriously, even when the West is unwilling to
accede to or compromise with them; "Engagement must be realistic and flexible" (361). Expect
the unexpected. After all, you are dealing with a wiry, wily judo master.
Putin Says US Social Unrest Show "Deep-Seated Internal Crises" by Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2020 - 11:51
The Rubin Report's Pavel Zarubin interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday, where
he said social unrest across the US reveals the deep internal crisis in the country, reported
TASS News .
"What has happened [in the US] is the manifestation of some deep domestic crises," Putin
said, noting that this crisis was festering well before President Trump took office. "When he
won, and his victory was absolutely obvious and democratic, the defeated party invented
all sorts of bogus stories just to call into question his legitimacy," he added.
Putin pointed out the biggest problem of the US political system is the parties and their
special interest of people behind the scenes.
"It seems to me that the problem is that group party interests, in this case, are placed
above the interests of the entire society and the interests of people," Putin said.
While commenting on domestic issues, Putin said his government has been combating the virus
with minimal losses. He said that was not the case in the US, adding the failures of the US'
"management system" led to poor response and widespread destruction. He said the best strategy
has been Moscow's top-down approach as all parts of government operated as a single team.
Putin further expanded on the US social unrest by linking it to the pandemic: "It shows
there are problems. Things connected to the fight with the
coronavirus have shone a spotlight on general problems."
He criticized the lack of strong leadership of virus response efforts, saying that "the
president says we need to do such-and-such, but the governor somewhere tells him where to
go."
In Russia, "I doubt anyone in the government or the regions would say 'we're not going to do
what the government says, what the president says, we think it's wrong,'" Putin said.
Putin believes American democracy will work to end the twin crisis: public health and social
unrest, which have engulfed the country lately.
"I expect that the fundamental basis of US democracy will still allow and help this
country to end this crisis period where it certainly finds itself," he said.
The national security establishment does represent the actual government of dual "double
government". And it is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the elected branches of
government. Instead it controls them and is able to stage palace coups to remove "unacceptable"
Presidents like was the case with JFK, Nixon and Trump.
For them is are occupied country and then behave like real occuplers.
Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. ..."
"... She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people." ..."
"... She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. ..."
"... foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude." ..."
"... In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans. ..."
"... Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist ..."
Kirkpatrick's essay begins by insisting that, because of world events since 1939, America
has given to foreign affairs "an unnatural focus." Now in 1990, she says, the nation can turn
its attention to domestic concerns that are more important because "a good society is defined
not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities . . . by the relations among its citizens,
the kind of character nurtured, and the quality of life lived." She says unabashedly that
"there is no mystical American 'mission' or purposes to be 'found' independently of the U.S.
Constitution and government."
One cannot fail to notice that this perspective is precisely the opposite of George W.
Bush's in his second inauguration. According to Bush, America's post –Cold War purpose
was to follow our "deepest beliefs" by acting to "support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture." For three decades neoconservative foreign policy
has revolved around "mystical" beliefs about America's mission in the world that are unmoored
from the actual Constitution.
In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an
unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. She
rejects emphatically the views of some elitists who argue that foreign policy is a uniquely
esoteric and specialized discipline and must be cushioned from populism. She says that, no,
"it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our
behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people."
She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global
responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are
different from those of the electorate. Again, in Trumpian fashion, she argued that
foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless
resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American
interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude."
In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently
argued
that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation
from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government"
that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The
Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the
establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no
part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans.
Kirkpatrick concludes her essay with thoughts on "What should we do?" and "What we should
not do." Remarkably, her first recommendation is to negotiate better trade deals. These deals
should give the U.S. "fair access" to foreign markets while offering "foreign businesses no
better than fair access to U.S. markets." Next, she considered the promotion of democracy
around the world and, on this subject, she took the John Quincy Adams
position : that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be." However, she insisted:
"it is not within the United States' power to democratize the world."
When Kirkpatrick goes on to discuss America's post –Cold War alliances, she makes
clear that she is advocating, quite simply, an America First foreign policy. Regarding the
future of the NATO alliance, a sacrosanct pillar of the American foreign policy establishment,
she argued that "the United States should not try to manage the balance of power in Europe."
Likewise, we should be humble about what we can accomplish in Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union: "Any notion that the United States can manage the changes in that huge,
multinational, developing society is grandiose." Finally, with regard to Asia: "Our concern
with Japan should above all be with its trading practices vis-à-vis the United States.
We should not spend money protecting an affluent Japan, though a continuing alliance is
entirely appropriate."
She famously concludes her essay by making the plea for the United States to become "a
normal country in a normal time" and "to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status and
become again an unusually successful, open American republic."
Kirkpatrick became Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador because her 1979
article in Commentary , "Dictatorships and Double Standards," caught the eye of
the future president. In that article, she sensibly points out that authoritarian governments
that are allies of the United States should not be kicked to the curb because they are not free
and open democracies. The path to democracy is a long and perilous one, and nations without
republican traditions cannot be expected to make the transition overnight. Regarding the
world's oldest democracy, she remarked: "In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act
of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to
traverse."
While at the time neoconservatives opportunistically embraced her for this position as a
tactic to fight the Cold War, the current foreign policy establishment would consider
Kirkpatrick's argument to be beyond the bounds of decent conversation, as it would lend itself
to an accommodation with authoritarian Russia as a counterweight to totalitarian China.
Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey
Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993
she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance
against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the
invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist as saying that George W.
Bush was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that Bush's brand of moral imperialism is
not "taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC."
The fact that Kirkpatrick's recommendations in her 1990 essay coincide with some of Donald
Trump's positions in the 2016 campaign (if not with many of his actual actions as president)
make her views, ipso facto, not serious. The foreign policy establishment gives something like
pariah status to arguments that we should negotiate better trade deals, reconsider our Cold War
alliances and, most especially, subject American foreign policy to popular preferences. If she
were alive today and were making the arguments she made in 1990, then she would be an outcast.
That a formidable intellectual like Kirkpatrick would be dismissed in such a fashion is a sign
of how obtuse our foreign policy debate has become.
William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the
Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book, Democracy
and Imperialism , is from the University of Michigan Press. He studied political philosophy
under Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.
North Korea is likely to time the announced tests in a way that creates maximum damage for
Trump's reelection campaign.
It matter little which flavor of the establishment a US President hails from.
All Presidents are portrayed as 'peacemakers'. Only peacemakers can claim to fight 'just'
wars.
USA is effectively at war with Syria (via dubious legality of occupying Syrian oilfields),
Venezuela (having seized Venezuelan State assets with the pretense that Juan Guaidó is
the true head of State), and Yemen (via support for Saudi and UAE war on Yemen). And USA
leads/forces its allies in a Cold War with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Then there
is the backstabbing of the Palestinians and the US-backed coup in Peru. Trump is merely
spokesperson for all this belligerence. When he's gone, whether that occurs in 4 months or 4
years, TPTB/Deep State will turn the page and start again.
The Korean Armistice Agreement was a ceasefire, but no peace treaty was ever signed. In
effect the Korean war never ended.
DPRK will not give up her nukes, but that's not where its strength lies. Japan and South
Korea are within range of regular ballistic missiles, where US personnel are just sitting
duck. All this talk about nukes is hooey.
Aside from China, let's not forget Russia, which has a skin in this game. It has an 11
mile border, and 15 mile maritime border with DPRK. It will do it's utmost for North not
become South.
Here's my 2 cents. North Korea should never denuclearize. The US is never going to remove
itself from South Korea. The only reason it won't ever be attacked, is if the cost of
attacking it is too great to justify. Timing this announcement to damage Trump isn't smart.
Yes, Trump gets sabotaged by Pompeo, Bolton when he was around and many others, but at the
end of the day the attack order is still his call and it's been obvious Trump doesn't want a
war with them. He's mostly just bluffing with his threats towards others. If you get Biden in
there, he won't be running the show. Youll have the Pentagon and the neoliberals in charge.
They will be less tough talk on Twitter, but definitely more of a threat to start a major war
It's important to speculate that the relations between the USA and South Korea have their
contradictions.
The South Korean elite certainly would like a complete victory over the North under their
terms (unconditional surrender to the South). That would allow the dream scenario for South
Korea: ransacking their infrastructure (by the chaebols ) and absorbing their 25
million population as cheap workforce.
The South Korean military would also love this scenario, as an enlarged Korea, bordering
both China (in a very favorable terrain for a terrestrial invasion in collaboration with the
Americans) and Russia, with 75 million inhabitants, could rival Japan as the favorite vassal
of the USA in the northwestern Pacific. This would embolden the nationalists at home, open
space to crush the center-left (social-democrats) and add fuel to the melting pot of East
Asia.
A unified Korea under capitalist hegemony would also enable the Korean military to charge
the Americans for much more money, military equipment and other infrastructure in exchange
for keeping their occupation. It would also absorb the North's nuclear weapon technology,
know-how and infrastructure, so it would automatically be a nuclear power. It could even rise
above Japan in geopolitical importance in the American eyes for this reason - it could
essentially be an Israel in East Asia, directly threatening China in the name of the USA.
For that reason I think the USA doesn't want a unified and strengthened Korea - even one
unified under the South's terms.
The American are already bleeding money and resources on Israel, NATO, Japan and the
already existing South Korea. To have another emboldened vassal would bleed the American
fiscus even more.
Besides, the Americans see themselves as the owners of South Korea, in the sense that
South Korea owes their own existence to American occupation. If the North is to fall, I don't
think the USA will allow the South Korean bourgeoisie to simply grab the North Korean
resources and nuclear know-how. I don't think they will make the same mistake they did with
Germany (by allowing the Western elite to absorb the East entirely, which opened the gates to
the creation of the EU and then to the German conquest of Central Europe).
My bet is the North resources would mainly fall to American capital if it was to be
conquered. Maybe the American won't even allow a unified Korea - at least not de facto
.
Kim Jong Un is more than a match for the dope Trump and his class of '86 wargamers. With this
particular agreement the USA confirmed in everyone's eyes that it remains incapable of making
and keeping a deal between nations. It would have been cheap and easy for Trump to walk away
with a deal to give himself security in his second term runup. He cheated, he lied, and he
bragged and so now that very agreement is a lance that the North Korean people can torment
and bleed Trump with for the next six months and more.
Let's be clear about how important and sane the original deal was: relax the oppressive
sanctions, diminish nuclear threats, remove invasion threats in exchange for repatriated
human remains, and NK to destroy its nuclear production facility. That ignorant Pompeo nixed
the deal on his very next visit and proved to Kim on his first round with the USA that the
president was a puppet and the USA incapable of being trusted.
It was easy, it was inexpensive, it was painless and the USA could not do it.
And so Trump handed a weapon to Kim to stab at him throughout his own re-election. No
brains in Kushner or Ivanka's heads as they too have handed a golden opportunity to the North
Korean fox. Fools all.
The North Koreans have only their liberty and nation to lose and they would not lose it back
in the 1950's and they sure wont lose it now. All the more so to a scabrous pack of greedy
Chaebol mafia from the south. Do not forget that the USA bombed the North Koreans
continuously, almost every village was bombed in a free fire zone approach that was repeated
in Vietnam a decade or so later. Koreans were slaughtered in their millions by this grubby
little USA mendacity and it is remembered through the generations. Korea had only just
repulsed the Japanese occupation. They remember - and they wont be suckered by some clown
nation in the Pacific.
DPRK is an ally of both China and Russia, US enemies which are currently besting the US by
undermining its influence. .. from the Senate 2021 proposed budget summary:
Two years ago, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) outlined our nation's preeminent
challenge: strategic competition with authoritarian adversaries that stand firmly against
our shared American values of freedom, democracy, and peace -- namely, China and
Russia.These adversaries seek to shift the global order in their favor, at our expense. In
pursuit of this goal, these nations have increased military and economic aggression, worked
to develop advanced technologies, expanded their influence around the world, and undermined
our own influence. . . here
Posted by: vk | Jun 12 2020 17:54 utc | 7 use its 25 million inhabitants as a brand-new cheap
labor resources with which the chaebols could start a new cycle of capitalist accumulation is
closing.
Not to mention the estimated *6-10 trillion dollars* in natural resources that North Korea
has.
From another article: "An estimate from 2012 by a South Korean research institute values
the North's mineral wealth at $10 trillion, 20-odd times larger than that of the South."
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
Since this nothing-burger appears to have kicked off with an article in the NYT, it looks to
me as though someone reminded The Swamp that Iran hasn't been disarmed and is thus not the
kind of soft target that can be pushed around with impunity by AmeriKKKa. Imo, Iran is a lot
closer to the top of the Military Genius pecking order than AmeriKKKa. i.e. Iran has made it
quite clear that "Israel" will cop the blowback if Iran is attacked, and has also
demonstrated its ability to conduct high-precision strikes on US bases & bunkers in the
region. Iran is also quite good at swapping insults with AmeriKKKa and Iran's insults are
usually funnier than AmeriKKKa's...
Threatening North Korea probably seemed like a better/safer idea than threatening Iran but
only until China's diplomatic comedians start ripping into AmeriKKKa's loud-mouthed dorks and
daydreamers.
Surprise, surprise. The Trump/Kim Jong-un love affair was about as long as one of Elizabeth
Taylor's romances. Kim Jong-un wrote him beautiful letters and they fell in love, yet just as
quickly they fell out of love. That's the way it is with Trump. He's a male version of
Elizabeth Taylor. Melania was smart to renegotiate her prenup. It appears Kim Jong-un
neglected to insist on a prenup.
This guy does not understand the term "neoliberalism" and process of rejection of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of
neoliberal globalization. As such his analysis is by-and-large junk. Still some quotes are interesting enough to the
readers. Undeniably Russia and China are poses both features of the nationa-states and distinct civilizations, but that
changes nothing in their fight against American Imperialism and global neoliberalism.
The weakness of both Russia and China is that they are neoliberal states themselves, so while fighting American neoliberal
imperialism (to a certain extent) externally, they promote neoliberalism internally. China implements something like NEP (New
economic Policy) installed in Russia after revolution. It leads to tremendous level of corruption. Putin promotes something like a
New Deal Capitalism, but that contradicts the logic of neoliberalism and the fact of existince of Russian oligarchs. Political
balance relies just of the power of Putin personality. That might lead to the collapse of state when current leaders are gone, as
this is a very fine balance which requires exceptional political agility. Putin does possessed it, but that does not mean that
Russia can find another Putin. Then what? A new Yeltsin?
Notable quotes:
"... today we are witnessing the end of the liberal world order and the rise of the civilisational state, which claims to represent not merely a nation or territory but an exceptional civilisation ..."
"... Western civilisation is much less able to confront both internal problems such as economic injustice, social dislocation and resurgent nationalism, ..."
Such states define
themselves not as nations but civilisations – in opposition to the liberalism and global
market ideology of the West. By Adrian Pabst The 20th century marked the
downfall of empire and the triumph of the nation state. National self-determination became the
prime test of state legitimacy, rather than dynastic inheritance or imperial rule.
After the
Cold War, the dominant elites in the West assumed that the nation-state model had defeated all
rival forms of political organisation. The worldwide spread of liberal values would create an
era of Western hegemony. It would be a new global order based on sovereign states enforced by
Western-dominated international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank and the World Trade Organisation.
But today we are witnessing the end of the liberal world order and the rise of the civilisational state, which claims to represent not merely a nation or territory but an
exceptional civilisation. In China and Russia the ruling classes reject Western liberalism and
the expansion of a global market society. They define their countries as distinctive
civilisations with their own unique cultural values and political institutions. The ascent of
civilisational states is not just changing the global balance of power. It is also transforming
post-Cold War geopolitics away from liberal universalism towards cultural exceptionalism.
****
Thirty years after the collapse of totalitarian state communism, liberal market democracy is
in question. Both the West and "the rest" are sliding into forms of soft totalitarianism as
market fundamentalism or state capitalism creates oligarchic concentrations of power and
wealth. Oligarchies occur in both democratic and authoritarian systems, which are led by
demagogic leaders who can either be more liberal, as with France's president Emmanuel Macron,
or more populist, such as Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. In both the older
democracies of western Europe and in the post-1989 democracies of the former Soviet Union,
fundamental freedoms are in retreat and the separation of powers is under threat.
The resurgence of great power rivalry, especially with the rise of Russia and China, is
weakening Western attempts to impose a unified set of standards and rules in international
relations. The leaders of these powers, including the US under Donald Trump, reject universal
human rights, the rule of law, respect for facts and a free press in the name of cultural
difference. The days of spreading universal values of Western enlightenment have long since
passed.
Globalisation is partly in reverse. Free trade is curtailed by protectionist tariff wars
between the US and China. The promotion of Western democracy has been replaced by an
accommodation with autocrats such as North Korea's Kim Jong-un. But more fundamentally,
geopolitics is no longer simply about the economy or security – Christopher Coker
describes it in The Rise of the Civilizational State (2019) as largely sociocultural and
civilisational. The non-Western world, led by Beijing and Moscow, is pushing back against the
Western claim to embody universal values.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping champions a model of "socialism with Chinese characteristics"
fusing a Leninist state with neo-Confucian culture. Vladimir Putin defines Russia as a
"civilisational state", which is neither Western nor Asian but uniquely Eurasian. Trump rails
against the European multicultural dilution of Western civilisation – which he equates
with a white supremacist creed. Common to these leaders is a hybrid doctrine of nationalism at
home and the defence of civilisation abroad.
It reconciles their promotion of great-power
status with their ideological aversion to liberal universalism. States based on civilisational
identities are bound to collide with the institutions of the liberal world order, and so it is
happening.
Civilisations themselves might not clash, but contemporary geopolitics has turned into a
contest between alternative versions of civilised norms. Within the West, there is a growing
gap between a cosmopolitan EU and a nativist US. And a global "culture war" is pitting the
West's liberal establishment against the illiberal powers of Russia and China. Cultural
exceptionalism is once again challenging, and arguably replacing, liberalism's claim to
universal validity. The powers redefining themselves as state civilisations are gaining
strength.
****
A new narrative has taken hold among the ruling classes in the West: that the aggressive
axis of Russia and China is the main threat to the Western-dominated international system. But
the liberal world order is also under unprecedented strain from within. The Iraq invasion of
2003, the 2008 global financial crash, austerity and the refugee crisis in Europe, which began
in earnest in 2015 and was partly the result of Western destabilisation in Libya and Syria,
have all eroded public confidence in the liberal establishment and the institutions it
controls. Brexit, Donald Trump and the populist insurgency sweeping continental Europe mark a
revolt against the economic and social liberalism that has dominated domestic politics and
neoliberal globalisation. The ascent of authoritarian "strongmen" such as Putin, Xi Jinping,
India's prime minister Narendra Modi, Turkey's President Erdogan and Brazil's new leader Jair
Bolsonaro are a major menace to liberal dominance over international affairs. But the principal
danger to the West is internal – namely the erosion of Western civilisation by
ultra-liberalism.
The dominant idea of the last four decades is the belief that the West is a political
civilisation that represents the forward march of history towards a single normative order. But
experience has shown that this force, with its tendency towards cartel capitalism, bureaucratic
overreach, and rampant individualism, is devastating the West's cultural civilisation. Part of
the legacy of this civilisation is the postwar model of socially embedded markets,
decentralised states, a balance of open economies with protection of domestic industry and a
commitment to the dignity of the person, enshrined in human rights.
It is a legacy that rests on a common cultural heritage of Greco-Roman philosophy and law,
as well as Judeo-Christian religion and ethics. Each, in different ways, stress the unique
value of the person and free human association independent of the state. Western countries
share traditions of music, architecture, philosophy, literature, poetry and religious belief
that make them members of a common civilisation rather than a collection of separate
cultures.
This civilisational heritage and its principles are under threat from the forces of
liberalism. In the name of supposedly universal liberal values, the Clinton administration
adopted as its civilising mission the worldwide spread of market states and humanitarian
intervention. After the 9/11 attacks, left-liberal governments such as Tony Blair's New Labour
waged foreign wars and curtailed civil rights in the name of security.
Emmanuel Macron, the latest cheerleader for Western progressives, has led a crackdown of the
gilets jaunes protesters in France that threatens fundamental freedoms of speech,
association and public demonstration. As Patrick Deneen, the Catholic legal scholar and author
of Why Liberalism Failed (2018), and others have shown, liberalism is undermining the
principles of liberality on which Western civilisation depends, such as free inquiry, free
speech, tolerance for dissent and respect for political opponents.
At the heart of the West is a paradox. It is the only community of nations founded upon the
political values of self-determination of the people, democracy and free trade. These
principles were codified in the 1941 Atlantic Charter signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin
D Roosevelt, and enshrined in the post-1945 international system. Yet liberalism is eroding
these cultural foundations, and we are now living with the consequences. Western civilisation
is much less able to confront both internal problems such as economic injustice, social
dislocation and resurgent nationalism, and the external threats of ecological devastation,
Islamist terrorism and hostile foreign powers.
After the fall of communism, the liberal West sought to recast reality in its progressive
self-image. As Tony Blair put it, only liberal culture is on the "right side of history". The
US and western Europe viewed themselves as carriers of universal values for the rest of
humanity. Liberal leaders mutated into what Robespierre called "armed missionaries". They
exported Western cultural norms of personal self-expression and individual emancipation from
family, religion and nationality. Nations were seen by Western liberals as egos writ large that
desire nothing but to adapt to the imperatives of globalisation and a world without borders or
national identities.
The shallow culture of contemporary liberalism weakens civilisation in the West and
elsewhere. Liberal capitalism promotes cultural standards that glorify greed, sex and violence.
Too many liberals in politics, the media and the academy are characterised by a "closing of the
mind" that ignores the intellectual, literary and artistic achievements that make the West a
recognisable civilisation.
Some cosmopolitan liberals even repudiate the very existence of the West as a civilisation.
In one of his BBC Reith Lectures in 2016, the British-born Ghanaian-American academic Kwame
Anthony Appiah, the grandson of the former Labour chancellor Stafford Cripps, maintained that
we should give up on the idea of Western civilisation. "I believe," Appiah said, "that Western
civilisation is not at all a good idea, and Western culture is no improvement."
****
The rejection of Western universalism by the elites in Russia and China challenges the idea
of the nation state as the international norm for political organisation. The Chinese and the
Russian ruling classes view themselves as bearers of unique cultural norms, and define
themselves as civilisational states rather than nation states because the latter are associated
with Western imperialism – and in the case of China a century of humiliation following
the 19th-century Opium Wars. Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules the World
(2009), argues that, "The most fundamental defining features of China today, and which give the
Chinese their sense of identity, emanate not from the last century when China has called itself
a nation state but from the previous two millennia when it can be best described as a
civilisation state."
... ... ...
Adrian Pabst is a New Statesman contributing writer and the author of "Liberal World
Order and Its Critics" and "The Demons of Liberal Democracy"
If one ventures into the vast wasteland of American television it is possible to miss the
truly ridiculous content that is promoted as news by the major networks. One particular feature
of media-speak in the United States is the tendency of the professional reporting punditry to
go seeking for someone to blame every time some development rattles the National Security plus
Wall Street bubble that we all unfortunately live in. The talking heads have to such an extent
sold the conclusion that China deliberately released a lethal virus to destroy western
democracies that no one objects when Beijing is elevated from being a commercial competitor and
political adversary to an enemy of the United States. One sometimes even sees that it is all a
communist plot. Likewise, the riots taking place all across the U.S. are being milked for what
it's worth by the predominantly liberal media, both to influence this year's election and to
demonstrate how much the news oligarchs really love black people.
As is often the case, there are a number of inconsistencies in the narrative. If one looks
at the numerous photos of the protests in many parts of the country, it is clear that most of
the demonstrators are white, not black, which might suggest that even if there are significant
pockets of racism in the United States there is also a strong condemnation of that fact by many
white people. And this in a country that elected a black man president not once, but twice, and
that black president had a cabinet that included a large number of African-Americans.
Also, to further obfuscate any understanding of what might be taking place, the media and
chattering class is obsessed with finding white supremacists as
instigators of at least some of the actual violence. It would be a convenient explanation
for the Social Justice Warriors that proliferate in the media, though it is supported currently
by little actual evidence that anyone is exploiting right-wing groups.
Simultaneously, some on the right, to include the president, are blaming legitimately dubbed
domestic
terrorist group Antifa , which is perhaps more plausible, though again evidence of
organized instigation appears to be on the thin side. Still another source of the mayhem
apparently consists of some folks getting all excited by the turmoil and breaking windows and
tossing Molotov cocktails, as did
two upper middle class attorneys in Brooklyn last week.
Nevertheless, the search goes on for a guilty party. Explaining the demonstrations and riots
as the result of the horrible killing of a black man by police which has revulsed both black
and white Americans would be too simple to satisfy the convoluted yearnings of the likes of
Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow.
Which brings us to Russia. How convenient is it to fall back on Russia which, together with
the Chinese, is reputedly already reported to be working hard to subvert the November U.S.
election. And what better way to do just that than to call on one of the empty-heads of the
Barack Obama administration, whose foreign policy achievements included the destruction of a
prosperous Libya and the killing of four American diplomats in Benghazi, the initiation of
kinetic hostilities with Syria, the failure to achieve a reset with Russia and the
assassinations of American citizens overseas without any due process. But Obama sure did talk
nice and seem pleasant unlike the current occupant of the White House.
The predictable Wolf Blitzer had a recent interview with perhaps the emptiest head of all
the empowered women who virtually ran the Obama White House. Susan Rice was U.N. Ambassador and
later National Security Advisor under Barack Obama. Before that she was a Clinton appointee who
served as Undersecretary of State for African Affairs. She is reportedly currently being
considered as a possible running mate for Joe Biden as she has all the necessary qualifications
being a woman and black.
While Ambassador and National Security Advisor, Rice had the reputation of being
extremely abrasive . She ran into trouble when she failed to be convincing in support of
the Obama administration exculpatory narrative regarding what went wrong in Benghazi when the
four Americans, to include the U.S. Ambassador, were killed.
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all
wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to
hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also,
I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on
my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well. I would not be surprised to
learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
It should be noted that Rice, a devout Democrat apparatchik, produced no evidence whatsoever
that the Russians were or have been involved in "fomenting" the reactions to the George Floyd
demonstrations and riots beyond the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all
believe that Moscow is responsible for everything. Clinton in particular hopes that some day
someone will actually believe her when she claims that she lost to Trump in 2016 due to Russia.
Even Robert Mueller, he of the Russiagate Inquiry, could not come up with any real evidence
suggesting that the relatively low intensity meddling in the election by the Kremlin had any
real impact. Nor was there any suggestion that Moscow was actually colluding with the Trump
campaign, nor with its appointees, to include National Security Advisor designate Michael
Flynn.
Fortunately, no one took much notice of Rice based on her "experience," or her judgement
insofar as she possesses that quality. Glenn Greenwald
responded :
"This is fuxxing lunacy -- conspiratorial madness of the worst kind -- but it's delivered
by a Serious Obama Official and a Respected Mainstream Newscaster so it's all fine This is
Infowars-level junk. Should Twitter put a 'False' label on this? Or maybe a hammer and sickle
emoji?"
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova accurately described the
Rice performance as a "perfect example of barefaced propaganda." She wrote on her Facebook
page "Are you trying to play the Russia card again? You've been playing too long – come
back to reality" instead of using "dirty methods of information manipulation" despite "having
absolutely no facts to prove [the] allegations go out and face your people, look them in the
eye and try telling them that they are being controlled by the Russians through YouTube and
Facebook. And I will sit back and watch 'American exceptionalism' in action."
It should be assumed that the Republicans will be coming up with their own candidate for
"fomenting" the riots and demonstrations. It already includes Antifa, of course, but is likely
to somehow also involve the Chinese, who will undoubtedly be seen as destroying American
democracy through the double whammy of a plague and race riots. Speaking at the White House,
National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien
warned about foreign incitement , including not only the Chinese, but also Iran and even
Zimbabwe. And, oh yes, Russia.
One thing is for sure, no matter who is ultimately held accountable, no one in the Congress
or White House will be taking the blame for anything.
COVID COUNTING. The usual suspects are convinced that
Russia's lying (the accusation is a pitiful attempt to cover up the failure of the "
two best-prepared countries ") but I
don't believe anything Western outlets say about Russia. But Moscow city has published numbers that may
explain things . 15,713 deaths in Moscow in May; three-year average is 9914; therefore
excess of 5799. They calculate 2757 had COVID as the main cause of death but it was
present in 5260 deaths. Therefore, as I suspected ,
it's a counting issue: died of versus died
with . In any case, even at the larger number, the deaths are far fewer than
elsewhere. A new theory to add to the others is that there are fewer old people, thanks to high
mortality rates in the Soviet days, and Russians don't generally put them in nursing homes (the
source of large proportion of deaths in Western countries.)
PERSONALLY I think Moscow is commenting with considerable restraint as the USA learns about
colour revolutions first hand. Read this from the
Atlantic : "The Trump Regime Is Beginning to Topple". "Regime". Wow, eh?
NUGGETS FROM THE STUPIDITY MINE. "Before Donald Trump, Russia Needed 60 Hours To Beat NATO
-- Now Moscow Could Win Much Faster"
Forbes tells us. The assumption is that Russia would grab the Baltics and stop there. I
know the author is just shilling for the weapons makers but, if you assume your audience is
really stupid, you become stupider – a race to the bottom of the mine.
MH17. It looks as if all the prosecution has is
stuff from Kiev and Bellingcat . So much for Kerry's "we observed it" . So
will the court find the defendants not guilty or continue with the farce? Speaking of "our
values and way of life".
The media's Russiagate failures were just a trial-run for the last four months.
June 10, 2020
|
12:01 am
Arthur
Bloom The most effective kind of propaganda is by omission. Walter Duranty didn't cook up
accounts from smiling Ukrainian farmers, he simply said there was no evidence for a famine,
much like the media tells us today that there is no evidence antifa has a role in the current
protests. It is much harder to do this today than it was back then -- there are photographs and
video that show they have been -- which is the proximate cause for greater media concern about
conspiracy theories and disinformation.
For all the hyperventilating over the admittedly creepy 2008 article about "cognitive
infiltration," by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, it was a serious attempt to deal with the
problem of an informational center being lost in American public life, at a time when the
problem was not nearly as bad as it is today. It proposed a number of strategies to reduce the
credibility of conspiracy theorists, including seeding them with false information. Whether
such strategies have been employed, perhaps with QAnon, which has a remarkable ability to
absorb all other conspiracy theories that came before it, I leave to the reader's
speculation.
Books will one day be written about the many failures of the media during the Trump
presidency, but much of the Russiagate narrative-shaping was related to the broader problem of
decentralization and declining authority of establishment media. One of the more egregious
examples is the Washington Post's
report that relied upon a blacklist created by an anonymous group, PropOrNot, that found
more than 200 sites carried water for the Russians in some way, and not all on the right
either. In fact, if the Bush administration had commissioned a list of news sources that were
carrying water for Saddam Hussein in 2006, it would have looked almost the same as the
PropOrNot list, except here it was, recast as an effort to defend democratic integrity. On the
list was Naked Capitalism, Antiwar.com, and Truthdig.
This should have been a bigger scandal, very good evidence that the war on disinformation
was not that but a campaign against officially unapproved information. But virtually nobody
except Glenn Greenwald objected. There is some evidence that this style of blacklisting went
even further, into the architecture of search engines.
My reporting on Google search last year found that one of the "fringe domain" blacklists
included Robert Parry's Consortium News. In other words, if Google had been around in the
1980s, Parry's exposes on Iran-Contra would have been excluded from Google News results.
The criteria for inclusion on any of these lists are much more amorphous than a more
traditional one: taking money from a foreign power. As of this week, we now have
a figure for how much the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal
have taken from China Daily, a state-run newspaper, since 2016. It's $4.6 million, and $6
million, respectively. This is more than an order of magnitude greater than Russia is thought
to have spent on Facebook advertising prior to the 2016 election.
There are other specific Russiagate disgraces one would be remiss to overlook, like star
reporter Natasha Bertrand, who was hired at MSNBC after several appearances in which she
repeatedly defended the accuracy of the Steele Dossier, which itself was
likely tainted by Russian disinformation. The newspaper that published the Pentagon Papers
defended the outing of a source to the FBI. How David Ignatius, considered America's top
reporter on the intelligence community, can show his face in public after he was allegedly told
by James Clapper to "take the kill shot on Flynn," and then two days later doing just that, is
disturbing (Clapper's spokesman disputes this account, but Ignatius has not). The scoop, that
Flynn, the incoming national security advisor had spoken to the Russian ambassador, is in no
way suspicious, but for weeks was treated as if Flynn was making contact with his handler.
What Russiagate amounts to, as Matt Taibbi among others have written, is the use of federal
investigative resources to criminalize or persecute dissenters from the foreign policy line of
what we here at TAC call the Blob, in the same way that the PropOrNot list amounts to
an attempt to suppress unapproved sources of news.
Many of the same figures involved in prolonging the Russiagate hysteria were also big
cheerleaders for the Bush and Obama wars. Before Russiagate, there was the Pentagon military
analysts scandal, in which it was revealed that dozens of media commentators on military
affairs were doing so without disclosing their connections to the Pentagon or defense
contractors. It implicated Barry McCaffrey, Bill Clinton's drug war czar, who is now an MSNBC
contributor who helped to provide color for the narrative of General Flynn's decline,
suggesting
he was mentally ill after he had initially been supportive of him getting the job.
In a certain sense, Trump provides journalists who have disturbingly cozy relationships with
powerful people a way of looking like they are holding the powerful accountable, without
alienating any of their previous friends. Trump is in fact one of the weakest executives in
presidential history, partly because of the massive resistance to him in the federal workforce,
but also because his White House seems powerless to actually do anything about that. That
people actually think the dark cloud of fascism has descended upon the land when Trump can't
even figure out how to work those levers of power just shows how obsessed with symbolic matters
-- "representation," they call it -- our politics has become.
The subsequent failures of the American information landscape have only served to reinforce
this dynamic. Both the self-inflicted economic catastrophe of the coronavirus shutdowns, and
the recent civil unrest, will serve to concentrate wealth away from the hated red-state
bourgeoise and into the hands of the oligarchs in blue states, including Jeff Bezos, the owner
of the Washington Post . This bears repeating: COVID and the protests will lead to a
large transfer of wealth from a reliably Republican demographic -- small business owners -- to
one that is at best split, which is why you saw Jamie Dimon kneeling in front of a bank vault
this week.
Untangling the question of intent is difficult in the best of circumstances, and the same is
true here. The contrast between news networks ominously reporting on Florida beachgoers a month
ago now cheering on mass gatherings in large cities may not in fact be due to the fact that the
large consortiums that own the networks stand to benefit financially from the continued
shutdown of the country. They may sincerely believe, along with public health
officials , that balancing the risks of institutional racism and getting COVID-19 is worth
discussing in relation to protests, but balancing the same risks when it comes to going to
church or burying a family member is not. Or it may just be studied naivety, like the kind
exhibited a few weeks ago when the whole New York media scene rushed to the defense of the
New Yorker 's Jia Tolentino, who played the victim after people on social media
revealed that her family was involved in what certainly appears to be an exploitative
immigration scam.
The rise of the first-person essay and subjectivity in journalism may turn out to be a
perfectly congenial development for the powerful people in America; Tolentino is great at
writing about herself. For one thing, this is a lot cheaper than reporting; it probably isn't a
coincidence that this development has coincided with a huge decline in newsroom budgets. But at
the same time blaming this on economics feels like it misses the point, because there are many
people who are convinced this trend is good.
But the way it intersects with official corruption has me rather nervous. To give one
example, it seems clear that #MeToo degenerated after the Kavanaugh hearings and Biden's
nomination. And given the apparent loyalties of someone like David Ignatius, he isn't going to
be the one to unravel the intelligence connections involved in the great sexual violence story
of our generation, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. So we are left with the Netflix version,
slotted right into the typical narrative, in which the Epstein story looks fundamentally the
same as most other stories of sexual coercion, involving a powerful man and less powerful
woman, only with an exceptionally powerful man. And yet there are so many indications it was
not typical.
So it is today with George Floyd as well. It seems like there are perfectly reasonable
questions to be asked about the acquaintance between him and Derek Chauvin, and the fact that
the rather shady bar they both worked at conveniently burned down. But by now most of the media
is now highly invested in not seeing anything other than a statistic, another incident
in a long history of police brutality, and the search for facts has been replaced by
narratives. This is a shame, because it is perfectly possible to think that police have a
history of poor treatment toward black people and there might be corruption involved
in the George Floyd case, which is something Ben Crump, the lawyer for Floyd's family,
seems
to suggest in his interview on Face the Nation this weekend.
Two incidents in the last week, the freakout among young New York Times staffers
over their publication of an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton that has now led to the resignation of
the editorial page editor, and the report by Cockburn that Andrew Sullivan has been barred from
writing about the protests by New York magazine, are a good indication that all of
this is going to get worse. As for the class of people who actually own these media properties,
they will probably find that building a padded room for woke staffers, in the form of whatever
HR and "safety"-related demands they're making, will suit their interests just fine. about
the author Arthur Bloom is managing editor of The American Conservative. He was previously
deputy editor of the Daily Caller and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters
degrees in urban planning and American studies from the University of Kansas. His work has
appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Spectator (UK), The Guardian,
Quillette, The American Spectator , Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
During the cold war, the CIA called Dr. Zhivago "strategic (long-range) propaganda,"
which may seem simplistic, but they had a
point , Randy Boyagoda writes in his review of Cold Warriors: Writers Who Waged the
Literary Cold War : "Pasternak emerges as one of the book's most impressive, if tragic,
figures. He wrote his novel knowing it would anger Soviet authorities, but he did not
anticipate how Western powers would wield it against his country. The CIA, Dutch intelligence,
and the Vatican conspired to provide Russian-language editions of the novel to Russians
visiting the 1958 World's Fair in Brussels. The CIA regarded it and similar titles as
'strategic (long-range) propaganda.' The irony, of course, is that Doctor Zhivago
appealed precisely because it wasn't written as propaganda. As White observes, 'The lead
character, Zhivago, a doctor and a poet, refuses to engage with politics, and it was this, [the
CIA] argued, that was "fundamental"' to its meaning. The CIA, whose earliest analysts included
people with serious literary training and interests, saw Zhivago as a challenge to the idea
that politics is the first and last context for meaningful experience. In this
sense, they believed, the book was efficaciously opposed to the first principles of Marxist and
Stalinist thought and practice."
@barr
ational interest in one of Untermeyer's pet projects -- the Zionist Movement."
Others have been even more explicit about the nature of Scofield's service to the Zionist
agenda. In "Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem," Prof. David W.
Lutz writes, "Untermeyer used Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer with no formal training in
theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermeyer and other wealthy
and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter's
career, including travel in Europe."
So we had two major pandemic exercises last year projecting almost exactly what did happen
with the corona virus. First was Crimson Contagion Jan thru Aug 2019
Then Event 201 the international war gaming of a global pandemic almost exactly like what
happened which took place only months before the real pandemic on October 2019
So depressing that nobody in the UK has the guts to ask questions about the Skripal affair.
Parliamentarians and msm are silent but there is always Rob Slane A
HREF="https://www.theblogmire.com/">here for one of the more exacting research efforts by
himself and his commenters. Its worth a detailed examination as he never bought the Govt
fairytale from day one and has the most forensic analysis available given the erasing of all
public data and cctv in Salisbury on the day and days that followed. Rob Slane lives in
Salisbury and was swept up in the Skripal story from his quiet little social/christian blog.
He is a legend.
Or Craig Murray of course but he would prefer to be known as a Scotland man not an
englander.
John Helmer at Dancing with Bears has also written some fine pieces on the Skripal's. His
latest piece brings light to the Wiltshire Police report that states
"On July 4 – that is four days after Sturgess and Rowley had been admitted to
hospital – the Wiltshire police published the conclusion from their investigation,
their roundup of witnesses, and from the hospital evidence that the drugs Sturgess and Rowley
had taken were Class A criminal and contaminated. Detective Sergeant Eirin Martin was
explicit. "We believe the two patients have fallen ill after using from a contaminated batch
of drugs, possibly heroin or crack cocaine." The evidence was so strong, Martin acknowledged
that publishing details of the crime was an "unusual step we are also asking anyone who may
have information about this batch of drugs we just need to know how these people came to fall
ill and where the drugs may have been bought from and who they may have been sold to."
No wonder the bottle of Novichok wasn't discovered during the first search of Rowley's
flat. MI6 hadn't planted it there until some time later.
Thank you and I forgot John Helmer. He is a legend on this and other matters of our times.
The Sturgess/Rowley story was pure D grade vaudeville. If there is one event that confirms
the ignorance of the englander power elite and its running dog media, it was the
Sturgess/Rowley fubar. LMAO at that one PLUS the utter BS about the 'novichok contaminated'
hotel room that the two 'Russian Lads' stayed in.
So another rabid neocon is hired by neocon MSM and instantly was interviewed by neocon Madcow, blaming Russia for the coup
d'état against Trump that Obama administration with her help launched. Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia. ..."
"... There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election. ..."
"... The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document ..."
"... it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy." ..."
"... Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans. ..."
Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who resigned in the midst of the Russian investigation
scandal, has been hired a NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst. The move continues a trend started
by CNN in hiring Trump critics, including officials terminated for misconduct, to offer legal
analysis on the Trump Administration.
We have previously discussed the use by CNN of figures like Andrew McCabe to give legal
analysis despite his being referred for possible criminal charges by the Inspector General for
repeatedly lying to federal investigators. The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative
of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears
a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.
Page appeared with Rachel Maddow and began her work as the new legal analyst by discussing
her own controversial work at the FBI. Page is still part of investigation by various
committees and the investigation being conducted by U.S Attorney John Durham.
I have
denounced President Trump for his repeated and often vicious references to Page's affair with
fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok . There is no excuse for such personal abuse. I also
do not view her emails as proof of her involvement in a deep-state conspiracy as opposed to
clearly inappropriate and partisan communications for someone involved in the investigation.
Indeed, Page did not appear a particularly significant figure in the investigation or even the
FBI as a whole. She was primarily dragged into the controversy due to her relationship with
Strzok.
However, Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring as do those who
expect analysis from experts without a personal stake in the ongoing investigations. It has
long been an ethical rule in American journalism not to pay for interviews. Either NBC is
paying for exclusive rights to Page in interviews like the one on Maddow's show or it is hiring
an expert with a personal stake in these controversies to give legal analysis. Neither is a
good option for a network that represented the gold standard in journalism with figures like
John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, and Roger Mudd.
It is not that Page disagrees with the Administration on legal matters or these cases. It is
the fact that she is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at
times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news
story, or at least a significant part of it.
Andrew A. Weissmann has also been retained as a legal analyst by NBC and MSNBC. While
Weissmann has been raised by Republicans as a lightening rod for his perceived partisan bias as
a member of the Mueller team, he does not have the type of personal conflict or interest in
these investigations. Weissmann is likely to be raised in the hearing over the next weeks into
the Flynn case in terms of prosecutorial decisions. (It is worth noting that Fox hired Trey
Gowdy at an analyst even though he would be commenting on matters that came before his
committee in these investigations.) In terms of balance, however, the appearance of both Page
and Weissmann giving analysis on the Administration's response to the protests is a bit
jarring for some .
Page was an unknown attorney in the FBI before she was forced into the public eye due to her
emails with Strzok. Her emails fueled the controversy over bias in the FBI. They were
undeniably biased and strident including the now famous reference to the FBI investigation as
"insurance" in case Trump was elected. In the email in August 2016, here's what Strzok
wrote:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [Andrew McCabe
is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for
that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40
What particularly concerns me is that Page has come up recently in new disclosures in the Flynn
case . In newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the
email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law
that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an
easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national
security or learning critical intelligence. As I have noted, the email reinforces other
evidence that it was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy
hunt.
It appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field Office issued a "Closing
Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" -- the newly
disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened. The FBI had
investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that "no derogatory information was
identified in FBI holdings." Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that
Flynn "was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella
case." On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case
manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him "Hey don't close
RAZOR." The FBI official replied, "Okay." Strzok then confirmed again, "Still open right? And
you're the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file." The FBI official confirmed:
"I have not closed it Still open." Strzok responded "Rgr. I couldn't raise [REDACTED] earlier.
Pls keep it open for now."
Strzok also texted Page:
"Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?"
Page replied "Phew. But yeah that's amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess."
Strzok replied "Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I'm
guessing :)"
Page will be the focus of much of the upcoming inquiries both in Congress and the Justice
Department as will CNN's legal analyst Andrew McCabe.
In her Maddow segment, Page attempts to defuse the "insurance policy" email as all part of
her commitment to protecting the nation, not her repeatedly stated hatred for Trump. In what is
now a signature for MSNBC, Maddow did not ask a single probative question but actually helped
her frame the response. Even in echo journalistic circles, the echo between the two was
deafening.
Page explained"
"It's an analogy. First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of interpreting what I
believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're talking about
whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that
he's going to be president or not."
You have to keep in mind if President Trump doesn't become president, the
national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia,
plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his
campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified
information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security
apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an analogy. It's like an insurance policy when
you're 40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance
policy."
Maddow then decided to better frame the spin:
"So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected and therefore not press forward
with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case
he does get in there."
Page simply responds " Exactly ."
Well, not exactly.
Page is leaving out that, as new documents show, there never was credible evidence of any
Russian collusion. Recently, the Congress unsealed testimony from a long line of Obama
officials who denied ever seeing such evidence,
including some who publicly suggested that they had .
Indeed, Page testified that even by
May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility
that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia.
There was little reason to
believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the
effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election.
The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents
began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document and suggested it might be
disinformation from Russian intelligence. The IG said that, due to the relatively low standard
required for a FISA application, he could not say that the original application was invalid but
that it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of
the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy."
Page also left out her other emails
including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if
she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed
to both Trump and the Republicans.
Bias however has become the coin of the realm for some networks. Why have echo journalism
when you can have an analyst simply repeat her position directly? For viewers who become irate
at the appearance of opposing views (
as vividly demonstrated in the recent apology of the New York Times for publishing a
conservative opinion column ), having a vehemently biased and personally invested analyst
is reassuring. It is not like Page will suddenly blurt out a defense of Flynn or Trump or
others in the Administration.
With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far
bank.
we_the_people, 11 minutes ago (Edited)
Nothing says professional journalism like hiring a dirty whore who was an active
participant in a coup to overthrow a duly elected President!
The level of insanity is truly amazing!
Heroism, 14 minutes ago
The MSM gets more Orwellian by the day, and today is like tomorrow.
More proof that corruption and deceit pay, big time. Surely, at some point viewers and voters
will say, "Enough!" and hit these purveyors of lies where it hurts--in the ratings and pocketbooks. Meanwhile,
the people will just willingly suffer..............
James Mattis and other generals have sent the political class into delirium with their
Trump criticism, but there are better voices for this moment than the authors of America's
forever wars
A procession of decorated former U.S. military leaders has spoken out in recent days to
gravely denounce President Trump and his unmistakably authoritarian response to the
demonstrations against police violence and racial injustice sparked by the death of George
Floyd.
James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps four-star general,
accused Trump of shredding the Constitution with the violent removal of protesters
outside the White House so that Trump could stage a photo op. Mattis, who was Trump's first
secretary of defense, said Americans were "witnessing the consequences of three years without
mature leadership."
John Allen, a retired Marine Corps four-star general and former commander of U.S. forces
in Afghanistan, warned that
the "slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1, 2020," the
day of Trump's crackdown and photo op. "Remember the date. It may well signal the beginning
of the end of the American experiment."
Mike Mullen, a retired Navy admiral and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the highest ranking military position in the country,
penned an essay titled "I Cannot Remain Silent" in which he wrote that Trump's conduct
"laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the
leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further
politicizing the men and women of our armed forces."
Looks like the third stage of the Purple revolution against Trump, with Russiagate and
Ukrainegate and two initial stages.
Notable quotes:
"... Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves. Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a racist dictatorship. ..."
"... According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical, Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part of his plot to "destroy democracy." ..."
"... The protesting and rioting that typically follows the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into " an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office. ..."
"... America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it. ..."
underground
bunker ." Opportunist social media pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are
whipping people up into white-eyed frenzies. Americans are at each other's throats, divided by
identity politics, consumed by rage, hatred, and fear.
Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves.
Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of
course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist
police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last
four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white
supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a
racist dictatorship.
According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the
corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical,
Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never
hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into
refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part
of his plot to "destroy democracy." The plan was always for President Hitler to embolden
his white-supremacist followers into launching the "RaHoWa," or the "Boogaloo," after which
Trump would declare martial law, dissolve the legislature, and pronounce himself Führer.
Then they would start rounding up and murdering the Jews, and the Blacks, and Mexicans, and
other minorities, according to this twisted liberal fantasy.
I've been covering the roll-out and dissemination of this official narrative since 2016, and
have documented much of it in my essays
, so I won't reiterate all that here. Let's just say, I'm not exaggerating, much. After four
years of more or less constant conditioning, millions of Americans believe this fairy tale,
despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support it. Which is not
exactly a mystery or anything. It would be rather surprising if they didn't believe it. We're
talking about the most formidable official propaganda machine in the history of official
propaganda machines.
And now the propaganda is paying off. The protesting and rioting that typically follows
the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into "
an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the
liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a
sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious
property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring
about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist
paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office.
In any event, the Resistance media have now dropped their breathless coverage of the
non-existent Corona-Holocaust to breathlessly cover the "revolution." The American police, who
just last week were national heroes for risking their lives to beat up, arrest, and generally
intimidate mask-less "lockdown violators" are now the fascist foot soldiers of the Trumpian
Reich. The Nike corporation produced
a commercial urging people to smash the windows of their Nike stores and steal their
sneakers. Liberal journalists took to Twitter, calling on rioters to "
burn that shit down! " until the rioters reached their gated community and started burning
down their local Starbucks. Hollywood celebrities are masking up and going full-black bloc, and
doing legal support . Chelsea Clinton is teaching children about David and the Racist
Goliath . John Cusack's bicycle was
attacked by the pigs . I haven't checked on Rob Reiner yet, but I assume he is assembling
Molotov cocktails in the basement of a Resistance safe house somewhere in Hollywood Hills.
Look, I'm not saying the neoliberal Resistance orchestrated or staged these riots, or
"denying the agency" of the folks in the streets. Whatever else is happening out there, a lot
of very angry Black people are taking their frustration out on the cops, and on anyone and
anything else that represents racism and injustice to them.
This happens in America from time to time. America is still a racist society. Most
African-Americans are descended from slaves. Legal racial discrimination was not abolished
until the 1960s, which isn't that long ago in historical terms. I was born in the segregated
American South, with the segregated schools, and all the rest of it. I don't remember it -- I
was born in 1961 -- but I do remember the years right after it. The South didn't magically
change overnight in July of 1964. Nor did the North's variety of racism, which, yes, is
subtler, but no less racist.
So I have no illusions about racism in America. But I'm not really talking about racism in
America. I'm talking about how racism in America has been cynically instrumentalized, not by
the Russians, but by the so-called Resistance, in order to delegitimize Trump and, more
importantly, everyone who voted for him, as a bunch of white supremacists and racists.
Fomenting racial division has been the Resistance's strategy from the beginning. A quote
attributed to Joseph Goebbels, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty," is
particularly apropos in this case. From the moment Trump won the Republican nomination, the
corporate media and the rest of the Resistance have been telling us the man is literally
Hitler, and that his plan is to foment racial hatred among his "white supremacist base," and
eventually stage some "Reichstag" event, declare martial law and pronounce himself dictator.
They've been telling us this story over and over, on television, in the liberal press, on
social media, in books, movies, and everywhere else they could possibly tell it.
So, before you go out and join the "uprising," take a look at the headlines today, turn on
CNN or MSNBC, and think about that for just a minute. I don't mean to spoil the party, but
they've preparing you for this for the last four years.
Not you Black folks. I'm not talking to you. I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do. I'm
talking to white folks like myself, who are cheering on the rioting and looting, and are coming
out to "help" you with it, but who will be back home in their gated communities when the ashes
have cooled, and the corporate media are gone, and the cops return to "police" your
neighborhoods.
OK, and this is where I have to restate (for the benefit of my partisan readers) that I'm
not a fan of Donald Trump, and that I think he's a narcissistic ass clown, and a glorified con
man, and blah blah blah, because so many people have been so polarized by insane propaganda and
mass hysteria that they can't even read or think anymore, and so just scan whatever articles
they encounter to see whose "side" the author is on and then mindlessly celebrate or excoriate
it.
If you're doing that, let me help you out whichever side you're on, I'm not on it.
I realize that's extremely difficult for a lot of folks to comprehend these days, which is
part of the point I've been trying to make. I'll try again, as plainly as I can.
America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when
Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when
Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into
office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as
Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it.
And that will be the end of the War on Populism , and we will
switch back to the War on Terror, or maybe the Brave New Pathologized Normal or
whatever Orwellian official narrative the folks at GloboCap have in store for us.
#
CJ Hopkins
June 1, 2020
Photo: Nike (George Floyd commercial)
"... The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line? ..."
They're going to do it, I tell you: The whole touchy-feely do-gooding ratpack of Microaggression worriers, reparations freaks,
weird sexual curiosities, race hustlers, bat.-Antifa psychos, and egalitarian enstupidators of universities. They are going to elect
Trump. Again.
Washington, where I shortly will be for a bit, is crazy. It has not the slightest, wan, etiolated idea of what is going on in
America. The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's
pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line?
2016 a Russia-Trump campaign collusion conspiracy was afoot and unfolding right before our eyes, we were told, as during his roll-out
foreign
policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then candidate Trump said [ gasp! ]:
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.
Some say the Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out."
NPR and others had breathlessly
reported at the time, "Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., was sitting in the front row" [ more gasps! ].
This 'suspicious'
"coincidence or something more?" event and of course the infamous
Steele 'Dodgy Dossier' were
followed by over two more years of the following connect-the-dots mere tiny sampling of unrestrained theorizing and avalanche of
accusations...
2019, Wired: Trump Must Be
A Russian Agent... (where we were told...ahem: " It would be rather embarrassing ... if Robert Mueller were to declare that
the president isn't an agent of Russian intelligence." )
It's especially worth noting that a
July 2018 New York Times
op-ed argued that President Trump -- dubbed a "treasonous traitor" for meeting with Putin in Helsinki -- should "be directing
all resources at his disposal to punish Russia."
Fast-forward to a July 2019 NY Times Editorial Board piece entitled
"What's America's Winning Hand if Russia
Plays the China Card?" How dizzying fast all of the above has been wiped from America's collective memory! Or at least the Times
is engaged in hastily pushing it all down the memory hole Orwell-style in order to cover its own dastardly tracks which contributed
in no small measure to non-stop national Russiagate hype and hysteria, with this astounding line:
That's right, The Times' pundits have already pivoted to the new bogeyman while stating they agree with Trump
on Russian relations :
"Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia , represents
by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term . That means President Trump is correct to try to establish
a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China ."
It's 2019, and we've now come full circle . This is The New York Times editorial board continuing their call for Trump to establish
"sounder" ties and "cooperation" with
Russia :
"Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often made progress in one facet of their relationship while
they remained in conflict over other aspects. The United States and Russia could expand their cooperation in space . They could
also continue to work closely in the Arctic And they could revive cooperation on arms control."
Could we imagine if a mere six months ago Trump himself had uttered these same words? Now the mainstream media apparently agrees
that peace is better than war with Russia.
With 'Russiagate' now effectively dead, the NY Times' new criticism appears to be that Trump-Kremlin relations are not close enough
, as Trump's "approach has been ham-handed " - the 'paper of record' now tells us.
Or imagine if Trump had called for peaceful existence with Russia almost four years ago? Oh wait...
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries."
-- Then candidate Trump on
April 27, 2016
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a
pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy
Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect
the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent
hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
"... People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the foreign war they wanted to happen so badly. ..."
U.S. -- A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction
with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to fight in a
foreign war if you post your support for attacking another country.
People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East
or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the
military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the
foreign war they wanted to happen so badly.
"Frankly, recruitment numbers are down, and we needed some way to find people who are
really enthusiastic about fighting wars," said a DOD official. "Then it hit us like a drone
strike: there are plenty of people who argue vehemently for foreign intervention. It doesn't
matter what war we're trying to create: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea,
China---these people are always reliable supporters of any invasion abroad. So why not get
them there on the frontlines?"
"After all, we want people who are passionate about occupying foreign lands, not grunts
who are just there for the paycheck," he added.
Strangely, as soon as the policy was implemented, 99% of saber-rattling suddenly
ceased.
Note: The Babylon Bee is the world's best satire site, totally inerrant in all its
truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.
The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly
6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from
the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just
the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.
If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.
Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com.
Neoliberal MSM just “got it wrong,” again … exactly like was the case
with those Iraqi WMDs ;-).
So many neocons and neolibs seem so disappointed to find out that the President is not a
Russian asset that it looks they’d secretly wish be ruled by Putin :-).
But in reality there well might be a credible "Trump copllition with the foreign power". Only
with a different foreign power. Looks like Trump traded American foreign policy for Zionist
money, not Russian money. That means that "the best-Congress-that-AIPAC-money-can-buy" will never
impeach him for that.
And BTW as long as Schiff remains the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee the witch
hunt is not over. So the leash remains strong.
Notable quotes:
"... it appears that hundreds of millions of Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening. At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the entire history of woeful bamboozlement. ..."
"... That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western democracy. ..."
"... Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about redactions and cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents marching Hillary into the White House. ..."
So the Mueller report is finally in, and it appears that hundreds of millions of
Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening.
At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the
entire history of woeful bamboozlement.
If you didn't know better, you'd think we were all a bunch of hopelessly credulous imbeciles
that you could con into believing almost anything, or that our brains had been bombarded with
so much propaganda from the time we were born that we couldn't really even think anymore.
That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a
pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally
losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent
conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western
democracy.
After two long years of bug-eyed hysteria, Inspector Mueller came up with squat. Zip. Zero.
Nichts. Nada. Or, all right, he indicted a bunch of Russians that will never see the inside of
a courtroom, and a few of Trump's professional sleazebags for lying and assorted other
sleazebag activities (so I guess that was worth the $25 million of taxpayers' money that was
spent on this circus).
Notwithstanding those historic accomplishments, the entire Mueller investigation now appears
to have been another wild goose chase (like the "search" for those non-existent WMDs that we
invaded and destabilized the Middle East and murdered hundreds of thousands of people
pretending to conduct in 2003). Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about
redactions and
cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of
the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents
marching Hillary into the White House.
The jig, as they say, is up.
But let's try to look on the bright side, shall we?
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
Trump's threat to deploy the military here
is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction from military officers to
the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
According to the standards set by the Trump administration when the Guaido coup first launched,
the video footage of these protests is full justification for a foreign nation to directly
intervene and remove Trump from office by force right now.
It would hardly surprise me if the regime change obsession has come home and now the US is
"enjoying" all of the democracy building color revolutions they love so much. No matter how
this end it will not end well for 99% of Americans
So one of key players of Russiagate gaslighting and Flynn entrapment trying the same dirty trick again. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... "We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well." ..."
"... "I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form." ..."
President Barack Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice suggested without evidence that the Russians could be behind
the violent demonstrations that have taken place across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday, Rice said:
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be
addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different.
And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience
this is right out of the Russian playbook as well."
"I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
Rice admits she's not reading the intelligence anymore, so what makes her think the Russians are behind this?
She doesn't offer much more in the way of evidence for her assertion, other than that the Russians are the Democrats' always-present
bogeyman, ever ready from behind
their poorly translated social media posts to unleash mayhem upon the U.S.
Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, Democrats have blamed Russians for the outcome of the 2016 election.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence that Russian-linked accounts spent
a small amount of money placing social media ads for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election, but there's nothing to suggest
their efforts were successful. The Department of Justice abruptly dropped its prosecution of a Russian-based troll farm, days before
trial. Mueller also did not find evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.
Although the claims of Russian "collusion" in the 2016 election were eventually found to be nearly totally baseless, Rice's new
narrative, that Russians support 2020's post-Floyd rioting, appears to be even more fact-threadbare.
Rice's claim drew criticism from across the political spectrum.
Eoin Higgens, a senior editor at Common Dreams, tweeted "you cannot make
this sh– up. F -- - deranged" while former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy
tweeted "there she goes again."
There's a reason Rice's claim was not taken seriously -- besides the lack of evidence for the Russian meddling narrative that has
dominated the nation's political life since 2016, there's also the sheer ineptitude of the actual Russian trolling and ads themselves.
Just look at this ad the Russians funded from the 2016 election cycle for a taste of how convincing those Russians and their social
media campaigns can be:
I haven't seen condemnation across the political spectrum. There are a few hard-left progressives like Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi,
and Glenn Greenwald of course, but they have always hated the RussiaGate conspiracy. I won't be holding my breath for any of the
#Resistance puppets castigate Rice. They can't, because #RussiaGate is foundational to their existence.
Y'all are really confusing me! During the civil rights marches, conservatives warned people that the "agitators" were Russian
tools. Now, you say that's crazy talk!.
Rice asserts that civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Let's presume she's had a peek into the
Russia playbook. Her statement can be falsified by the good fact checkers at this website!
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be more surprised than Rice to learn that Russia is still in the outside agitator business.
Just a suggestion, of course. Someone as patriotic as Rice really should check it out.
The saddest thing is that she's been too lazy to come up even with the most jury-rigged conspiracy theory as to why Russians
would need it, despite the fact that emotional reaction-oriented rhetorical turds to... sculpture such a theory (albeit a very
debunkable one) are floating on the surface. A most deplorable intellectual sloth. What to expect from neolibs/neocons, though?
They're always like that. Say some folderol - and then go hiding in the kind Grandpa Bolton's venerable moustɑche.
I don't know which idea is more laughable - Black Americans are so lacking in agency that they aren't even responsible for their
own protests, or, the Russians are so diabolical that they can turn anyone and everyone into the Manchurian Candidate.
More likely, Susan Rice can't admit that her woke ideology has limitations. She needs a scapegoat so badly that she'll babble
any nonsense to accuse one. Hard to believe she was once the National Security Adviser.
I read on a libertarian oriented forum that the current protests are actually being done by the Chinese. Apparently, the Soviets
(Russians) instigated the riots in the late 60s.
Where are all the stars you ask" afterwards they will come out with concerts on TV, speeches big speeches that they real do care
you hear me, PC BS they will look tragic this time, all the makeup in the world won;t hide their deception, arrogance, utter idiocy
in White Towers.
Transcripts of under oath statements before the House Intelligence committee revealed neither Susan Rice nor other Obama administration
officials had any evidence of Russian meddling in 2016. Of course all proceeded with spreading baseless inuendo for years before
and afterwards.
So if not under oath anything Susan Rice alleges is simply not worth listening to.
Seems like so many presidents have been led into terrible foreign policy decisions by their Blob advisors...Obama by Susan Rice,
Samantha Power, and Hillary; Dubya by Cheney and Rumsfield; Carter by Zbiggy, Ford and Nixon (both who should have known better)
by Kissinger.
Susan Rice is more ignorant and has far lower intelligence than I ever suspected or she is playing politics and lying. The Russians
have no motive. The Russians have no hand to play. The Chinese who have bribed a long list of democratic politicians have a very
significant motive and a major hand to play in fomenting riots and race animosity...as a means to influence the November election
away from Trump to Biden.
Flirtation with Muslim Brotherhood by Obama was very bad for the USA and the world,
especially Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... "No one really knows the nature of the Brotherhood project: whether it is that of a sect, or if it is truly mainstream; and this opacity is giving rise to real fears. At times, the Brotherhood presents a pragmatic, even an uncomfortably accommodationist, face to the world, but other voices from the movement, more discretely evoke the air of something akin to the rhetoric of literal, intolerant and hegemonic Salafism. What is clear, however, is that the Brotherhood tone everywhere, is increasingly one of militant sectarian [i.e. Sunni] grievance." ..."
"... All these supposedly popular dynamics had become tools in the "fervour for the restitution of a Sunni regional primacy – even, perhaps, of hegemony – to be attained through fanning rising Sunni militancy and Salafist acculturation". Containing Iran, of course was a primary aim (encouraged, of course, by Washington). But these forces collectively comprised a project in which Gulf leaders managed and pulled the levers – and paid the bills too. ..."
"... The American, European and Gulf leaders (i.e. the gods) turned sharply away from the Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar was the exception) – and turned instead to ISIS and Al-Qaida. The 'gods' were set on making an example of a non-compliant Assad and increasingly, they looked to the latter – ISIS – to inject the required savagery to claw down Assad – in the face of the latter's tenacious fight-back. ..."
"... In any event, sentiment turned violently against the MB from many quarters. Secular Arab nationalists had always heartily detested the MB, and the al-Saud and Emirate leaderships similarly detested the Muslim Brotherhood (albeit for different reasons). ..."
"... But there was always a fundamental contradiction in the American flirtation with the Muslim Brotherhood: it was that Washington's objective was never regional reform – whether secular or Islamist; the aim always was to preserve a malleable status quo in the Middle East. ..."
"... U.S. neo-cons were then at the peak of their influence. Since 1996, they had insisted on unqualified U.S. support for the region's Kings and Emirs versus the Ba'athists and Islamists. It was they who won out easily – against CIA officers such as Graham Fuller – in the debate on whether or not to support any sort of 'Arab Awakening'. ..."
"... The U.S. sided with Saudi Arabia and UAE in mounting the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood President in Cairo. And still today, the U.S. and its European protégés support the UAE's Crown Prince in his vendetta war against Islamists everywhere, from the Horn of Africa to the Magreb – and against Turkey too, as the Muslim Brotherhood's 'mother-ship'. ..."
"... These 'policy papers' may have been the precursors, but in the final analysis, the 'block' simply is, and has been, Israel – both indirectly and directly. The Clean Break's full title was a New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e. Israel). It was a blueprint for underpinning Israel's security. Ditto for Wurmser's paper. ..."
"... In sum, either U.S. or Israeli fears, or U.S. concerns to appease domestic U.S. constituencies, lie at the bottom of this stasis: Israeli and the U.S. élites are wholly comfortable with this malleable status quo – and fear it changing in any way that they cannot control. No reform for the Middle East – only disruption. ..."
Some eight years ago, I wrote about
the outbreak of popular stirring in the Middle East, then labelled the 'Arab Awakening'.
Multiple popular discontents were welling: demands for radical change proliferated, but above
all, there was anger – anger at mountainous inequalities in wealth; blatant injustices
and political marginalisation; and at a corrupt and rapacious élite. The moment had
seemed potent, but no change resulted. Why? And what are the portents, as the Corona era covers
the region once again with dark clouds of economic gloom and renewed discontent?
The U.S. was conflicted, as these earlier rumblings of thunder spread from hilltop to
hilltop. Some in the CIA, had perceived popular movements – such as the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) (although Islamist) as the useful solvent that could wash away lingering stale
Ottoman residues, to usher in a shiny westernised modernity. Many over excited Europeans
imagined (wrongly), that the popular Awakenings were made in their own image. They weren't.
The facile interpretation of the Awakening as a liberal democratic 'impulse' was at best, an
exaggeration, if not a pure fantasy. I wrote then (in 2012): "What genuine popular impulse
there was at the outset has now been subsumed, and absorbed into three major political projects
associated, rather with a push to reassert [Sunni] primacy across the region: a Muslim
Brotherhood project, a Saudi-Salafist project, and a militant Salafist project [which
subsequently was to evolve into ISIS]".
The key early player was the Muslim Brotherhood. I wrote :
"No one really knows the nature of the Brotherhood project: whether it is that of a sect,
or if it is truly mainstream; and this opacity is giving rise to real fears. At times, the
Brotherhood presents a pragmatic, even an uncomfortably accommodationist, face to the world,
but other voices from the movement, more discretely evoke the air of something akin to the
rhetoric of literal, intolerant and hegemonic Salafism. What is clear, however, is that the
Brotherhood tone everywhere, is increasingly one of militant sectarian [i.e. Sunni]
grievance."
This was the common thread: All these supposedly popular dynamics had become tools in the
"fervour for the restitution of a Sunni regional primacy – even, perhaps, of hegemony
– to be attained through fanning rising Sunni militancy and Salafist acculturation".
Containing Iran, of course was a primary aim (encouraged, of course, by Washington). But these
forces collectively comprised a project in which Gulf leaders managed and pulled the levers
– and paid the bills too.
And for an early instant, those in the U.S. who had bet on the Muslim Brotherhood, glimpsed
victory. Egypt fell to the MB; Syria was subject to a full-spectrum 'war', and the Muslim
Brotherhood openly expressed its objective to 'take' the Gulf, where it had long established
covert cells and networks.
But it was overreach. The Muslim Brotherhood was, it seemed to interested parties, about to
steal (like Prometheus), the fire which belonged exclusively to 'the gods'. Plus, the MB were
revealing obvious flaws: Its leadership in Cairo was deeply unconvincing. In Syria, where the
movement never had significant penetration (single digit percent support), it was being quickly
displaced by war-experienced Salafists coming in from the war in Iraq.
The American, European and Gulf leaders (i.e. the gods) turned sharply away from the
Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar was the exception) – and turned instead to ISIS and Al-Qaida.
The 'gods' were set on making an example of a non-compliant Assad and increasingly, they looked
to the latter – ISIS – to inject the required savagery to claw down Assad –
in the face of the latter's tenacious fight-back.
In any event, sentiment turned violently against the MB from many quarters. Secular Arab
nationalists had always heartily detested the MB, and the al-Saud and Emirate leaderships
similarly detested the Muslim Brotherhood (albeit for different reasons).
But there was always a fundamental contradiction in the American flirtation with the
Muslim Brotherhood: it was that Washington's objective was never regional reform –
whether secular or Islamist; the aim always was to preserve a malleable status quo in the
Middle East.
U.S. neo-cons were then at the peak of their influence. Since 1996, they had insisted on
unqualified U.S. support for the region's Kings and Emirs versus the Ba'athists and Islamists.
It was they who won out easily – against CIA officers such as Graham Fuller – in
the debate on whether or not to support any sort of 'Arab Awakening'.
The U.S. sided with Saudi Arabia and UAE in mounting
the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood President in Cairo. And still today, the U.S. and
its European protégés support the UAE's Crown Prince in
his vendetta war against Islamists everywhere, from the Horn of Africa to the Magreb
– and against Turkey too, as the Muslim Brotherhood's 'mother-ship'.
This 'war on Islamists' has provided cover for the counter-revolutionary repression of any
reform of the 'Arab System' – a rearguard Gulf action initially triggered by fears that
any 'Awakening' might sweep away Gulf ruling families. Today, the UAE continues to try to seed
compliant strongmen, General Sisi lookalikes, in states such as Libya and now Tunisia .
So, here we are. But, where are we going? And, above all, why no reform? Can this continue,
or will the region explode under the effects of the Covid-triggered, recession?
No reform at all, for a full decade? What's the block? Well, in the first place, the
background lies with those two key neo-con policy papers: the 1996 Clean
Break , and David Wurmser's follow-on, Coping with Crumbling States. These two documents
laid the basis for the U.S. (and Israeli) endorsement of Gulf States acting as 'policeman' and
regional strongmen (a role that the UAE has taken to a new peak), managing any rumblings of
dissent (such as in Libya).
These 'policy papers' may have been the precursors, but in the final analysis, the
'block' simply is, and has been, Israel – both indirectly and directly. The Clean Break's
full title was a New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e. Israel). It was a blueprint for
underpinning Israel's security. Ditto for Wurmser's paper.
In sum, either U.S. or Israeli fears, or U.S. concerns to appease domestic U.S.
constituencies, lie at the bottom of this stasis: Israeli and the U.S. élites are wholly
comfortable with this malleable status quo – and fear it changing in any way that they
cannot control. No reform for the Middle East – only disruption.
Here is the point: There has been no reform, but there is a new dynamic at work. Power is an
attribute that is based in deference and powerful illusion. So long as people are willing to
defer to a leader; so long as people are persuaded by the illusion of power; so long as people
fear – the leader leads. But should the illusion become evident as illusion, nothing
easily can prop it up. Power is ephemeral; it dissipates like mountain mist. And the U.S. is
losing it.
Trump's threat
to deploy the military here is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction
from military officers to the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
Earlier in the day yesterday, audio has leaked in which the Secretary of Defense
referred to U.S. cities as the "battlespace." Separately, Sen. Tom Cotton was
making vile remarks about using the military to give "no quarter" to looters. This is the
language of militarism.
It is a consequence of decades of endless war and the government's
tendency to rely on militarized options as their answer for every problem. Endless war has had a
deeply corrosive effect on this country's political system: presidential overreach, the
normalization of illegal uses of force, a lack of legal accountability for crimes committed in
the wars, and a lack of political accountability for the leaders that continue to wage pointless
and illegal wars. Now we see new abuses committed and encouraged by a lawless president, but this
time it is Americans that are on the receiving end. Trump hasn't ended any of the foreign wars he
inherited, and now it seems that he will use the military in an llegal mission here at home.
The military is the only American institution that young people still have any real degree of
faith in, it will be interesting to see the polls when this is all over with.
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message. ..."
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
"... The United States today functions in a never-never land of fiction and fantasy when it comes to allegations of Russian meddling in its internal affairs. Logically speaking, most Americans should be insulted by the notion that their democratic institutions are so weak that a half-baked social media campaign could sway a national election (never minding the reality that former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500 million on advertising , run by the most sophisticated media support team in the history of American politics, and couldn't get the electoral needle to move an inch). ..."
As American political leaders are confronted with the scope and scale of the unrest engendered by decades of failed policy, they're
turning to a time-tested scapegoat to deflect responsibility away from their shoulders – Russia. While American cities burn, its
politicians are desperately looking to assign responsibility for the chaos and anarchy that is unfolding. Among those casting an
accusatory finger is Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from the State of Florida and the acting Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee.
"Seeing VERY heavy social media activity of #protest & counter reactions from social media accounts linked to at least three
foreign adversaries," Rubio tweeted .
"They didn't create these divisions," Rubio noted, "but they are actively stoking & promoting violence & confrontation
from multiple angles."
Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama-era defense official and current candidate for Congress,
tweeted "I hope the @FBI is investigating
potential direct or indirect foreign interference in looting. Definitely not out of the question." While neither Rubio nor Farkas
named Russia in their tweets, they are both well-known for their Russia-baiting postings on social media, and there could be little
doubt as to whom they were pointing an accusatory finger at.
President Obama's former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, however, left no doubt about where the source of this "foreign
influence" came from. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Rice, discussing the violent protests sweeping America today,
declared "I would bet, based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is
right out of the Russian playbook as well."
Rice, Rubio and Farkas are not alone. Typical of the anti-Russian hyperventilation taking place in US media regarding Russia's
alleged hidden hand in the ongoing riots is
an article published by CNN
, written by Donie O'Sullivan , a reporter who works
closely with CNN's investigative unit "tracking and identifying online disinformation campaigns targeting the American electorate."
While concluding that "the protests are real, and so are the protesters' concerns," and cautioning the reader to step
back and take a breath "before getting too caught up" in any discussion about Russian involvement, O'Sullivan asserts that
starting with the 2016 Presidential election "Russia backed (and is likely still backing) an elaborate, years-long covert misinformation
campaign" involving "a network of Facebook and Twitter pages designed to look like they were run by real American activists
and that were used to stoke tensions in American society."
But the pièce de résistance comes in the middle of the article. "Arguably Russia's biggest achievement," O'Sullivan states,
"was the paranoia it instilled in American society. We now regularly see Americans accuse people and groups on social media that
they do not agree with of being Russian trolls or bots. These accusations are often made with no evidence and can distract from and
undermine real Americans who are engaging in political speech."
Thanks to Russia, O'Sullivan asserts, Americans now have Russia on their mind even if Russia is not involved–which is, of course,
Russia's fault. But don't fret -- "It is possible that we will learn in the coming days, weeks, and months that some covert activity
has been going on–that some Facebook pages and Twitter accounts encouraging violent protests are indeed linked to Russia."
The United States today functions in a never-never land of fiction and fantasy when it comes to allegations of Russian meddling
in its internal affairs. Logically speaking, most Americans should be insulted by the notion that their democratic institutions are
so weak that a half-baked social media campaign could sway a national election (never minding the reality that former presidential
candidate
Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500 million on advertising , run by the most sophisticated media support team in the history
of American politics, and couldn't get the electoral needle to move an inch).
There is a truism that you cannot solve a problem without first properly defining it. In their effort to shift blame away from
their own failings by alleging "outside" (i.e., Russia) sources of interference in the ongoing social unrest ravaging American
cities, the politicians and leaders Americans look to for solutions are setting themselves up for failure, if for no other reason
that any solution which is predicated on unproven allegations of Russian meddling isn't solving the real problems facing American
society today.
Russia did not direct the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police. Nor did Russia direct and implement decades
of policing culture in the United States underpinned by racism, backed by a system of justice that sustained and magnified the same.
The social and legal inequities of American law enforcement have been a problem hiding in plain sight for decades, only to be ignored
by generations of American leaders who exploited the fear-based culture that fed on this system for their own political gain; Russia
had nothing whatsoever to do with this cancer that has metastasized throughout the width and breadth of the American body public.
It is the height of intellectual hypocrisy and moral cowardice for those whom America needs the most in this time of trouble to
stand up and take a hard, honest look at the diseased nature of the American law enforcement establishment today, and make the kind
of difficult but necessary decisions needed to reform it, to instead cast blame on the Russian bogeyman. The Russian blame game may
play well on media outlets that long ago surrendered to a political establishment desperate to retain power and influence regardless
of the cost. But, for the legion of Americans whose frustration with the inherent racism of American policing policies today, this
kind of simplistic deflection will not succeed. America's cities are on fire; manufacturing false narratives that place the blame
for this conflagration of Russia will not put them out.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT. Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing
the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer.
He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and
from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
TNI editor Jacob Heilbrunn interviews Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov about
the New START Treaty and the state of U.S.-Russia relations.
Jacob Heilbrunn : What is your assessment of the state of U.S.-Russia relations?
Sergei Ryabkov : The current state of our bilateral relations is probably worse than we have
experienced for decades preceding this current moment. I don't want to compare this with Cold
War times because that era was different from what we have now -- in some ways, more
predictable; in some ways, more dangerous. From Moscow's perspective, the Trump era is worrying
because we move from one low point to another, and as the famous Polish thinker Jerzy Lec said
once, "We thought we had reached the ground, and then someone knocked from beneath."
This is exactly how things happen today. We try hard to improve the situation through
different proposals in practically all areas that pull Moscow and Washington apart. It doesn't
happen. We recognize that everything that is associated with Russia policy is now quite
problematic, to put it mildly -- quite toxic for the U.S. mainstream in the broader sense of
the word. But the only answer to this, we believe, is to intensify dialogue and search for ways
that both governments, businesses -- structures that impact the general mood of the public --
maintain and probably deepen their interaction and discourse so as to remove possible
misunderstandings or grounds for miscalculations.
One of the most troubling areas in this very dark and dull picture is of course arms
control. There we see a downward spiral that is being systematically enhanced and intensified
by the U.S. government. It looks like America doesn't believe in arms control as a concept
altogether. Instead, it tries to find pretexts to depart from as many arms control treaties,
agreements, and arrangements that Russia is also a party to. This is very regrettable. But make
no mistake: we will not pay any price higher than the one we would pay for our own security in
order to save something or keep the U.S. within this system. It's squarely and
straightforwardly the choice that the American government may or, in our view, even should make
-- because we still think that the maintenance of these agreements ultimately serves American
national interests.
Heilbrunn : What is your view of the Trump administration's approach to the START
Treaty?
Ryabkov : I can easily say that the Trump administration's approach to the START Treaty is
quite strange. Number one: we understand the reasons why the Trump administration wants China
to become a party to any future arms control talks or arrangements -- although we equally
understand the reasons why China doesn't want to be part of these agreements, and thus we
believe that it's up to Washington to deal with Beijing on this issue. And in the absence of a
very clear and open and considered consent from the other side -- that is, from China -- there
would be no talks with China or with China's participation. That's an obvious reality that we
face.
So the next element of this logic brings us to the natural conclusion that it would be in
everyone's interest just to extend what we have now -- that is, a new START in the form as it
was signed and subsequently ratified -- and then defer contentious issues and unresolved
problems, including the one that is associated with U.S. non-compliance with this treaty, to a
later point. An eventual extension of the treaty for five more years would give sufficient time
to both Washington and Moscow, and eventually for others, to consider the situation and make
decisions not in a hurry but with due regard to all aspects and to the gravity of the
challenges before us, including those associated with new military technologies. But again, we
are not there to trade this approach for anything on the U.S. side, to get something from the
U.S. side in return. I think it's quite logical and natural as it stands, so we invite the U.S.
to consider what we are telling them at face value.
Heilbrunn: Traditionally, Russia has worked well with Republican administrations starting
with Nixon. Is that era at an end?
Ryabkov: I don't know. It completely depends on the U.S. We do believe that irrespective of
what party is in the government in the U.S., there are choices; there are opportunities; and
there are possibilities that at least should be explored with Russia. I don't know if this
administration regards Russia as a party worth having a serious dialogue with. I tend to
believe it's not because of domestic political reasons, because of different approaches to
matters that are quite obvious at least for us, including the international system of treaties
and international law in general.
But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in effect
become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international instruments
were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this approach would serve
U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never suggest that it was for us
-- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous administration.
It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were imposed
upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is totally rejected by
Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration, weeks before it departed,
stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic immunity, and we are still deprived of
this property by the Trump administration. We have sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama
and the Trump administrations demanding the return of this property, only to see an endless
series of rejections. It is one of the most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our
relationship.
There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?" Both are
bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to Washington on different
topics.
Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has become a
rogue state?
Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an entity
that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a source of
trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect and defend
themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the people around the
world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.
Heilbrunn : If President Trump were to respond to your last point, he might say, "What's
wrong with uncertainty from the American perspective? What's wrong with keeping your
adversaries off balance? Why should the U.S. be a predictable power?" What would your response
be to that?
Ryabkov : My response to this would be that we are not asking the U.S. to be a responsible
and predictable partner because we don't believe it would be possible any time soon. We are
saying that this is a reality that we all face, and thus we only adjust our own reaction and
our own response to it trying the best way possible to protect our own interests.
Heilbrunn : Related to that, and on the START Treaty, a Trump administration State
Department official recently announced that the U.S. was ready, essentially, to bury Russia, to
spend it into the ground in a new arms race just as it had in the 1980s.
Ryabkov : To bring it into oblivion.
Heilbrunn : Right. What is your response to those kinds of threats?
Ryabkov : There is no response. We just take note of it, and we draw our lessons from the
past. We will never, ever allow anyone to draw us into an arms race that would exceed our own
capabilities. But we will find ways how to sustain this pressure, both in terms of rhetoric and
also in terms of possible action.
Heilbrunn : What does this kind of rhetoric imply for the future of an extension of the
START Treaty? Doesn't it suggest that the treaty may in fact already be doomed and that the
Trump administration is using China as a poison pill to kill the treaty altogether?
Ryabkov : On China, I think the U.S. administration is obsessed with the issue, and it tries
to introduce "Chinese discourse" into every single international issue at the table. So it's
not about the START Treaty. It's much broader, deeper, and it's by far more multifaceted than
anything that relates to arms control as such. My view on this is that chances for the new
START Treaty to be sustained are rapidly moving close to zero, and I think that on February 5,
2021, this treaty will just lapse, and it will end. We will have no START as of February 6,
2021.
Heilbrunn : Do you feel the American stance toward Russia is inadvertently helping to
promote a Russia-China rapprochement that is actually not in Washington's interest?
Ryabkov : We don't think we can operate on the premise that because of some pressure or some
external impact on us, something happens in terms of the evolution of priorities or approaches
to China or to anyone else. We don't believe the U.S. in its current shape is a counterpart
that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever. So our own calculations and
conclusions are less related to what America is doing than to many, many other things. And we
cherish our close and friendly relations with China. We do regard this as a comprehensive
strategic partnership in different areas, and we intend to develop it further. Heilbrunn : The
U.S. is pushing very hard against China right now, at least rhetorically. China has vowed to
smash any Taiwanese move toward independence and looks to be cracking down in Hong Kong as
well. Do you see this as another instance where American overt bellicosity ends up boomeranging
and pushing its adversaries to take more drastic measures?
Ryabkov : Of course, it's not possible for me to judge what China will do in those cases or
in those instances, but I do think that every single area where the U.S. believes there is an
opportunity to pressure China is being currently used in a most energetic and most forceful
manner. I think it clearly entails a further growth of uncertainty in international relations.
I still hope though that at some point, the natural instinct to talk and agree and conclude
deals will prevail rather than this ongoing effort to squeeze something out of others -- not
only China, but Russia and others who tend to follow their independent policy from America.
Heilbrunn : In this regard, when it comes to Russia -- because you see the U.S. as trying to
increase the pressure on Russia as well -- do you draw a distinction between President Trump
and his administration, or do you see them as aligned in their approach toward Russia? Because
during the 2016 election campaign, Trump was explicit about trying to revive the U.S.-Russia
relationship.
Ryabkov : No, I see no lines anywhere. I see no distinction, as you have described.
Moreover, I see no distinction between the previous administration and this one.
Heilbrunn : Let me put it another way: what about differences between Trump and his own
advisers? Do you think Trump himself is inclined to take a more diplomatic route, or do you
think that U.S.-Russia policy is being driven by him?
Ryabkov : I don't know who drives U.S. policy toward Russia. We welcome any signal from the
Americans, including from the President himself in favor of improvement, in favor of going
along, and we are prepared to bear our share in this. But unfortunately, it doesn't work. And I
suspect to some extent that it's also my own fear that in my modest position, I was not able to
offer anything to my bosses that may help to change things for the better.
Heilbrunn : Final question: do you think that matters, at least in the area of arms control,
would change under a Biden presidency? Because the Democrats are much more sympathetic to arms
control agreements than Republicans currently appear to be. What's your take?
Ryabkov : I have no idea how things will unfold in relation to the forthcoming election in
the U.S. No predictions, no expectations. I do think, though, that it would be very late in the
process for any administration -- including the second Trump administration if he is reelected
-- to deal with the issue of a new START extension after the day of elections in America. I
think more broadly that the current, almost one-hundred percent watertight anti-Russian
bipartisan consensus in the U.S. doesn't promise much good for this relationship for the
future, irrespective of who wins the next election. So we will see. We will continuously work
hard to try to devise alternative paths forward, but we have no partner on the American
side.
Sergei Ryabkov is Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation.
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
Wednesday, July 10, 2019Non-Agreement Capable, Or Agreement Incapable, Or...
Agreement-unworthy, or.... I didn't find many English-language report on Putin's last week
interview on this issue:
We knew this all along, didn't we? It is not just about personalities, however
repulsive in his narcissism and lack of statesmanship Obama was. It is systemic, no matter who
comes to power to the Oval Office--it will make no difference. No difference, whatsoever. What
is known as US power (political) elite has been on the downward spiral for some time and, in
some sense, the whole Epstein
affair with serious pedophilia charges, not to mention an unspeakable slap on the wrist in
which this well-connected pervert was let go ten years ago, is just one of many indications of
a complete moral and cognitive decomposition of this so called "elite" which continues to
provide one after another specimens of human depravity. Remarkably, as much as I always feel
nauseated when seeing GOPers, it is impossible to hide the fact that Epstein's clients in their
majority are mostly associated with putrid creatures from the so called "left", with Bill
Clinton featuring prominently in the company of this pervert.
There were some attempts to even conceive a possibility of somehow "progressives" and
"conservatives" getting together in their condemnation of this heinous crime (yeah, yeah, I
know, Presumption of Innocence).
Doesn't it sound wonderful, warm and fuzzy, or too good to be true? It sure does,
because, as much as most American elite "conservatives" are not really conservatives, what
passes as "progressive" in the United States is PRIMARILY based on sexual deviancy, including
implicit promotion of pedophilia by "intellectual class", and "environmental" agenda, period!
Everything else is secondary. Those who think that actual conservatism (not a caricature it is
known in the United States) has anything to discuss with the so called "progressives"--they
unwittingly support this very "progressive" cause which, in its very many manifestations, is a
realization of the worst kind of suppression of many millennia old natural, including
biological, order of things and, in the end, elimination of normality as such--a future even
Orwell would have had difficulty describing.
Of course, Pinkerton gets some flashes of common sense, when states that:
Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural
norming, and "liberal" elements, as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious
economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with these economic and
governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely
far away from beguiling pleasuredomes.
Well, he puts it very crudely, but I see where he is at least trying to get it
from. I will add, until nation, as in American nation, recognizes itself as a nation, as people
who have common history, culture and mission, thus, inevitably producing this aforementioned
healthy social and cultural norming--no amount of wishful thinking or social-economic
doctrine-mongering will help. There is no United States without European-keen, white Christian,
heterosexual folk, both with acutely developed sense of both masculinity and femininity,
period. But this is precisely the state of the affairs which American "progressives" are
fighting against; this is the state of the affairs which they must destroy be that by
imposition of suffocating political correctness, the insanity of multi-gender and LGBT
totalitarianism, or by criminal opening of the borders to anyone, who, in the end, will vote
for the Democratic Party. You cannot negotiate with such people. In the end, WHO is going to
negotiate? A cowardly, utterly corrupt, current GOPers and geriatric remnants of Holy
Reaganites? Really? Ask how many of them are Mossad assets and are in the pockets of rich
Israeli-firsters and Gulfies?
True "Left" economics, which seeks more just distribution (not re-distribution) of wealth,
based on a fusion of economic models and types of property, cannot exist within cultural
liberal paradigm of "privileged" minorities, be them racial or sexual ones, aided by massive
grievance-generating machine--it is not going to last. Both economic and social normality can
exist ONLY within cohesive nation and that, due to activity on both nominal sides (in reality
it is the same) of American political spectrum, has been utterly destroyed. The mechanism of
this destruction is rather simple and it comes down, in the end, to the, pardon my French,
number of ass-holes populating unit-volume (density, that is) of political space in America. It
goes without saying that such a density in the US reached deadly toxic levels, and Russiagate
coup, Epstein's Affair, or the parade of POTUSes with the maturity levels of high school kids
are just numerous partial manifestations of what one can characterize as the end of the rope.
After all, who would be making any agreements with representatives of the system which is
rotting and decomposing?
Paul Craig Roberts penned today a good piece: The
Obituary for Western Civilization Can Now be Written . I have to disagree somewhat with
PCR's one assertion:
Europeans Are as Dumbshit as Americans
I would pause a little here. Yes and no. Here is Colonel Wilkerson who talks about
both wealth (starts roughly at 14:00) and about other very important strategic and operational
fact: overwhelming majority of weapons on hands today are among those who either support Trump
openly or simply had it with system in general.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kZA2yIFkhKg/0.jpg
And here is the issue: my bets are on people with military backgrounds, who had first hand
experience with military organization (standard manuals, combat manuals et al) and have
operational and command experience in their conflict with American Social Justice Warriors (you
know--"progressives") and other openly terrorist "progressive" organizations such as Antifa. At
least ruined Portland started to do something
about it . Is there any real left left in the US? And I don't mean this a-hole Bernie
Sanders.
And here is my rephrasing of Tolstoy's conclusion to War and Peace: there are too many
ass-holes in American politics today , very many of them being so called "progressives"
. This number must be reduced by all legal means today, and if American ass-holes can
work together terrorizing majority of good, not ass-hole people, what's precluding those good
people to work together? Nothing, except for the rotting corpse of GOP which had audacity to
call itself "conservative". If not, all is lost and we do not want to live in the world which
will come. And the guns will start speaking. UPDATE : 07/11/19
Oh goody, do they read me or is it one of those moments when, in Lenin's description of
Revolutionary Situation, economic slogans transform into political ones? Evidently Catholic
Conservative Michael Warren speaks in unison with Lenin and me, with both me and Warren
certainly not being Marxists or "communists". Here is what Warren has to say today:
It is a very loaded statement. It is also not an incorrect one. It is also
relevant to what I preach for years, decades really, that history of the so called "communism"
in USSR was a conservative history--a transition from depravity and corruption of Russian
Imperial "elites" to what resulted in the mutated nationalism of sorts in late 1930s and led to
the defeat of Nazism, historically unprecedented restoration of the destroyed country and then
breaking out into space. But that is a separate story--in USSR, as it is the case in Russia
today, sexual perversion and deviancy are not looked at lightly. Nor are, in general, "liberal
values" which are precisely designed to end up with the legitimization of pedophilia--a long
held, and hidden, desire of Western
"elites" . Guess why such an obsession with, realistically, literary mediocrity of
Nabokov's Lolita by Western moneyed and "intellectual" class. Who in their own mind,
unless one is a forensic psychiatrist or detective, would be interested in such a topic, not to
mention writing a book on it, not to mention a variety of Hollywood and, in general, Western
cinematography artsy class making scores of Lolita movies? Each time I read Lolita, in
both Russian and English, I felt an urgent desire to take a shower after reading this
concoction. I guess, I am not "sophisticated" enough to recognize appeals of this type of
"art". As Warren notes:
Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we
discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on
minors. We should feel disgust at the
mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be
furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. This is
how revolutions are born. America is reaching the point where, 200 years ago, a couple French
peasants begin eyeing the Bastille. The question is, can conservatives channel that outrage
into serious reform before it's too late? Can we call out the fetid, decadent elites within our
own ranks ? Are we prepared to hold our own "faves" to account -- even Trump himself?
Alas, it's only a matter of time until we find out.
In this, I, essentially an atheist, and a conservative Catholic, are speaking in
the same voice.
Boy these Russians are geniuses of the highest order ...
First they put Donald Trump in power and now they're trying to tear the country apart under
him by supporting both black lives matter, and white supremacists at the same time.
I don't know how these stupid Journos can even imagine this stuff up out of their arses.
The sad irony is that these journalists will be the ones when future generations look back
who most contributed to the downfall of America ....
Anybody who uses the term "Russiagate" seriously and not to recognize the actual and
serious Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election in support of Trump is
not to be taken remotely seriously.
Russiagate is a valid and IMHO very useful political discourse term which has two
intersecting meanings:
1. Obamagate : Attempt of a certain political forces around Clintons and Obama
with the support of intelligence agencies to stage a "color revolution" against Trump,
using there full control of MSM as air superiority factor. With the main goal is the return
to "classic neoliberalism" (neoliberal globalization uber alles) mode
Which Trump rejected during his election campaign painting him as a threat to certain
powerful neoliberal forces which include but not limited to Silicon Valley moguls (note bad
relations of Trump and Bezos), some part of Wall street financial oligarchy, and most MSMs
honchos.
2. Neo-McCarthyism campaign unleashed by Obama administration with the goal to
whitewash Hillary fiasco and to preserve the current leadership of the Democratic
Party.
That led to complete deterioration of relations between the USA and Russia and increase
of chances of military conflict between two. Add to this consistent attempts of Trump to
make China an enemy and politicize the process of economic disengagement between the two
countries and you understand the level of danger. .
When a senior Russian official implicitly calls the USA a rogue state and Trump
administration -- gangsters on international arena, that a very bad sign. See
But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in
effect become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international
instruments were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this
approach would serve U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never
suggest that it was for us -- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous
administration.
It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were
imposed upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is
totally rejected by Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration,
weeks before it departed, stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic
immunity, and we are still deprived of this property by the Trump administration. We have
sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama and the Trump administrations demanding the
return of this property, only to see an endless series of rejections. It is one of the
most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our relationship.
There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?"
Both are bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to
Washington on different topics.
Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has
become a rogue state?
Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an
entity that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a
source of trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect
and defend themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the
people around the world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.
What I can't understand is this stupid jingoism, kind of "cult of death" among the US
neocons, who personally are utter chickenhawks, but still from their comfortable offices
write dangerous warmongering nonsense. Without understanding possible longer term
consequences.
Of course, MIC money does not smell, but some enthusiasts in blogs do it even without
proper remuneration
"... In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier. ..."
"... The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern American warfare. In the former, only a few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely, hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just one American soldier died in combat, compared to more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S. complicity . ..."
"... With unemployment sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example, sifting through the Department of Labor's statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones. That outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day. ..."
"... Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth. Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more confounding losses in Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old notions of what combat is ..."
"... The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy. ..."
Pandemic or no, resilient Americans will celebrate Memorial Day together. Be it through Zoom
or spaced six feet apart from ten or less loved ones at backyard cookouts, folks will find a
way. In these peculiar gatherings, is it still considered cynical to wonder if people will
spare much actual thought for American soldiers still dying abroad -- or question the
utility of America's forever wars? Etiquette aside, we think it's obscene not to.
Just as the coronavirus has
exposed systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S.
warfare truly are -- raising core questions about the holiday devoted to its sacrifices. The
truth is that today's "
way of war " is so abstract, distant, and short on (at least American) casualties as to be
nearly invisible to the public. With little to
show for it, Washington still directs bloody global campaigns, killing thousands of locals.
America has no space on its calendar to memorialize these victims: even the
children among them.
"Just as the coronavirus
exposed much internal systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common
conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are."
Eighteen years ago, as a cadet and young marine officer, we celebrated the first post-9/11
Memorial Day -- both brimming with enthusiasm for the wars we knew lay ahead. In the
intervening decades, for
individual yet strikingly
similar reasons, we ultimately
chose paths of dissent. Since then, we've
penned critical editorials around Memorial Days. These challenged the wars'
prospects ,
questioned the efficacy of the volunteer military, and
encouraged citizens to honor the fallen by creating fewer of them.
Little has changed, except how America fights. But that's the point: outsourcing
combat to machines, mercenaries, and militias rendered war so opaque that Washington wages it
absent public oversight or awareness -- and empathy. That's the formula for forever war.
In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria,
Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer
knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies
killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and
elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier.
The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern
American warfare. In the former, only a
few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely,
hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an
exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just
one American soldier died in combat, compared to
more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children
starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S.
complicity .
No one wants to see American troops killed, but a death disparity so stark stretches classic
definitions of combat. Yet for locals, it likely feels a whole lot like "real" war on
the business end of U.S. bombs and bullets.
So this year, given the stark reality that even a deadly pandemic -- and
pleas for global ceasefire -- hasn't
slowed Washington's war machine, it's reasonable to question the very concept of Memorial
Day. There are also important parallels with Labor Day -- the holiday bookend to today's
seasonal kick off. Just as memorializing America's obscenely lopsided battle deaths is
increasingly indecent, a federal holiday devoted to a labor movement the government has
aggressively eviscerated is deeply troubling.
With unemployment
sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age
levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example,
sifting through the Department of Labor's
statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones.
That
outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and
outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day.
Widening the aperture unveils thousands more "non-combat" -- but war-related -- uniformed
deaths in desperate need of memorializing. From 2006-2018
alone , 3,540 active-duty service members took their own lives -- just a fraction of the
15-20 daily veteran
suicides -- and another 640 died in accidents involving substance-abuse. Each death is
unique, but studies
demonstrate that the combined effects of PTSD and moral injury -- these wars' "
signature wound " -- contributed to this massive loss of life. On a personal level, at
least four soldiers under our commands took their own lives, as have several friends. These are
real folks who left behind real loved ones.
Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth.
Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more
satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more
confounding losses in
Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old
notions of what combat is die with them.
The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now
killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine,
Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars
combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer
celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy.
In a new take on an old tradition, perhaps it's proper to not only pack away the whites, but
don black as a memorial to a republic in peril.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For
Peace and World Beyond War. He previously served in Iraq with a State Department team and with
the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.
Sound like wishful thinking. Looks like cutting US military budget is impossible as "Full
spectrum Dominance" doctrine is still in place and neocons are at the helm of the USA foreign
policy. COVID-19 or not COVID-19.
The other day an aerospace industry analyst asked me whether I thought the defense budget
would start to go down, courtesy of the huge cost of dealing with the pandemic and the massive
deficits the nation faces. I said it was unlikely and he agreed.
This is not the conventional wisdom in DC. Some national security analysts and advocates for
higher defense budgets have
warned that the defense budget
is now under siege . Critics of the Pentagon and its spending are equally
convinced that the pandemic opens the door to necessary, deep, sensible
cuts in defense in order to fund the mountain of debt and take care of pressing needs for
income, employment, health care, global warming, and other major threats to the well-being of
Americans.
Whatever the nation's strategy, critics argue, the pandemic has changed the face of the
threat to America. COVID-19 is an invisible, lethal threat to human security, a viral neutron
bomb that spares buildings but kills their occupants.
Congress has appropriated more than 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, so
far, to cope with this threat. Additional funds for the military, ironically, have become a
"rounding error" in this spending -- little more than $10 billion of the more than $4 trillion
appropriated to date. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
warned about the likelihood of defense cuts and wanted more funds for the Pentagon, but
Rep. Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee
said there was no way defense would get more funds through the pandemic bills.
So it looks bad for defense, and good for the advocates of cuts. But not so fast. Yes, it is
true; history shows that defense budgets do decline. It happens, predictably, when we get out
of a war – World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. Even when we left Iraq in 2011,
the budget went down.
There is a secret ingredient in defense budget reductions: they seem to happen, as well,
when the politics of deficit reduction appear. Defense also declined after Korea because a
fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was in office, with five virtual stars on his shoulders,
making it possible to put a lid
on the budgetary appetites of the services.
In fact, in 1985, well before the end of the Cold War, Congress, focused on the deficit,
passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which was then was reinforced in the 1990 Budget
Enforcement Act that set hard spending limits on domestic and defense spending. It had to cover
both parts of discretionary spending or Congress could not agree. It was 17 years before the
defense budget
began to rise .
Put the end of war together with a dollop of deficit reduction and defense budgets will go
down. They become the caboose, rather than the engine, of the budgetary train. But beware of
what you ask for. The price of constraints on defense has been constraints on domestic
spending, as the nation has learned over the past three decades. In fact, the Budget Control
Act of 2011 constrained domestic spending, while allowing defense to
escape almost unscathed, thanks to war supplementals.
When attention shifts to debates over priorities and deficits, it opens the door to a real
discussion about defense. But they do not ensure cuts. While the military services may not see
their appetite for real growth of 3-5 percent fulfilled, it is unlikely to decline very
much.
There is a floor under the defense budget. But you need to change the level of analysis to
see it and look at who actually makes defense budget decisions and why they make the decisions
they do. It's about something I called
the "Iron Triangle."
We all like to think that strategy drives defense budgets. For the most part, however,
defense decisions are made inside a political system involving constant,
relatively closed interaction between the military services, the Congress, and the
community and industry beneficiaries of defense spending.
In outline, budget planners in the military services start with last year's budget and graft
on new funds, rarely giving up a program, a mission, or part of the force. This dynamic points
the budgets upwards over time. Secretaries and under-secretaries work to add preferences and
projects, like national missile defense, to the services' budget plans. On top of that,
presidents have made promises, adding such things as bomber funds (Reagan) and space forces
(Trump) the services do not want.
Then there is the second leg of the triangle: Congress. For all their efforts to cut
Pentagon waste, progressive members do not drive defense decisions in the Congress. The defense
authorizers and appropriators do. The associated committees are dominated by defense spending
advocates, deeply interested in the outcomes, encouraged by industry campaign contributions and
community lobbying. These outside interests are the third leg of the triangle. Contracts and
community-based impacts give them a deep stake in the outcomes.
This system is not a conspiracy; it is a visible part of American politics, similar in shape
to the players in farm price supports or health care policy. But it is a system that operates
somewhat separately from and parallel to the politics of deficit reduction and has a major
impact on the content and levels of the defense budget. And its work bakes a kind of sclerosis
into efforts to have a broader debate over spending priorities.
The politics of the Iron Triangle will set limits on the defense budget debate making deep
cuts unlikely. So what might be the options to end-run this system? Politics, of course. If the
advocates of deeper defense reductions want to change America's spending and budgeting
priorities, they will need to join forces with advocates of a "new, new deal" in America -- one
that would put priority on the national health system, infrastructure investment, climate
change, immigration, and educational reform. Only a very
large, very deep coalition has a chance of overcoming the inertia imposed by the Iron
Triangle.
And that coalition will need to focus on Joe Biden. The president is the key actor here,
particularly at the start of an administration. As Bill Clinton learned, the first months are
critical to changing overall budget priorities, before the departments, including Defense, can
begin the Iron Triangle dance.
Even then, major cuts in defense budgets are an uphill fight. The opening for a broader
priorities debate has been provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome depends significantly
on bringing this kind of focus to actions over the next seven months.
lysias @ 109
... Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please
excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting
for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian convictions to the pursuit of expansive
politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships they
introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or
improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed,
imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources
that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are
instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, con- sumes the largest percentage of
the nation's annual budget. Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and
the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose fiscal discipline and
accountability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous
type of corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind
of ruthless power relations it fosters in domestic politics. As many observers have noted,
politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity as the
hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political
party; the efforts to consolidate executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting
role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy
and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the
tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature
of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. In the
eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the
advancement of Athenian hegemony de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm
and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall of Athens was
attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for
ill-conceived adventures. As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics
became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by
pro\posing ever wilder schemes of conquest.
In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites, abetted by the Spartans,
succeeded in temporarily abolishing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
...and while I am at it: lysias @ 106
Let's deconstruct what you've said. Even if he resisted arrest (by what degree was he
resisting?) that is not cause for applying deadly force on someone. Clearly he was restrained
and was going no where. Furthermore, the application of restraint should be one that ought
not induce death in someone with a previous health condition. By your rationale, you have no
business of walking the streets if you are not an able-bodied person and that death by
restraint by a police officer is excusable if you happen to be in bad health.
Although you don't explicitly say it, somehow it feels like you are saying that he had it
coming to him when you write "Floyd had a lengthy criminal record." Does that mean just
because he had a lengthy record he deserved to be roughed up like that? This sounds like
victim blaming, which is something commonly done in this country to continue to oppress
people who have no power.
re Norogene | May 30 2020 3:09 utc | 155 "But, of course, you need to protect your country which means maintaining a defense force.
" Yet I cannot think of a single instance of a conflict amerika has gotten into that
wasn't a case of amerika kicking off the action with some particularly egregious act.
eg On the instances I have raised this with amerikans, many have told me they consider
Pearl Harbour to be an instance of amerika being the innocent party, they had no idea that
FDR had instigated a blockade of Japan long before which was starving Japanese people or that
Pearl Harbour wasn't amerikan soil, it was an illegally occupied nation and the Japanese
attack had been careful to only bomb and strafe the occupying force.
No nation needs a defense force if the true will of the citizens of a country was what
steered that nation, since as you said, most humans the world over prefer to live and let
live.
When I worked as a public servant it took me about 5 seconds to suss that those
bureaucrats promoting change didn't have a real interest in change apart from the opportunity
for promotion change can promote.
This is equally true of war, the arseholes arguing for getting into conflicts do so only
for the opportunities for personal benefit conflicts create. Since no war has ever advantaged
the masses it is safe to say left up to the people, no wars would always be their first
preference.
In what is shaping up as the next explosive geopolitical hotspot, one of China's most senior
generals said on Friday that the country will attack Taiwan if there is no other way of
stopping it from becoming independent in the latest rhetorical escalation between China and the
democratically ruled island Beijing claims as its own, Reuters reported.
Speaking at Beijing's Great Hall of the People on the 15th anniversary of the Anti-Secession
Law, Li Zuocheng, chief of the Joint Staff Department and member of the Central Military
Commission, left the door open to using force. The 2005 law gives the country the legal basis
for military action against Taiwan if it secedes or seems about to. Li is one of China's few
senior officers with combat experience, having taken part in China's ill-fated invasion of
Vietnam in 1979.
As Reuters notes the comments "are especially striking amid international opprobrium over
China passing new national security legislation for Chinese-run Hong Kong."
Taiwan's government denounced the comments, saying that threats of war were a violation of
international law and that Taiwan has never been a part of the People's Republic of China.
"Taiwan's people will never choose dictatorship nor bow to violence", Taiwan's Mainland
Affairs Council said. "Force and unilateral decisions are not the way to resolve
problems."
Taiwan is China's most sensitive territorial issue. Beijing says it is a Chinese province,
and has denounced the Trump administration's support for the island. Li Zhanshu, the
third-most-senior leader of China's ruling Communist Party and head of China's Parliament, told
the same event that non-peaceful means were an option of last resort: "As long as there is a
slightest chance of a peaceful resolution, we will put in hundred times the effort," Li Zhanshu
said. However, he added: " We warn Taiwan's pro-independence and separatist forces sternly, the
path of Taiwan independence leads to a dead end; any challenge to this law will be severely
punished".
Taiwan has shown no interest in being run by autocratic China, and has denounced China's
repeated military drills near the island while rejecting China's offer of a "one country, two
systems" model of a high degree of autonomy.
President Tsai Ing-wen and her Democratic Progressive Party won presidential and
parliamentary elections by a landslide in January, vowing to stand up to Beijing. At the same
time, China is deeply suspicious of Taiwan's president Tsai, whom it accuses of being a
separatist bent on declaring formal independence. Ms Tsai says Taiwan is already an independent
country called the Republic of China, its official name.
The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by
Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who
hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'
Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and
the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to
do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the
WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week -
shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.
Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't
already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan
takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO
Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort - notably reached out to a
Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted
"There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the
Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to
a US aerospace deal.
According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer
because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone
else.
The administration also took off the gloves with China over U.S. listings by mainland
companies that fail to follow U.S. securities laws. This came after the Commerce Department
finally moved to limit access by Huawei Technologies to high-end silicon chips made with U.S.
lithography machines. The trade war with China is heating up, but a conflict was inevitable and
particularly when it comes to technology.
At the bleeding edge of 7 and 5 nanometer feature size, American tech still rules the world
of semiconductors. In 2018, Qualcomm confirmed its next-generation Snapdragon SoC would be
built at 7 nm. Huawei has already officially announced its first 7nm chip -- the Kirin 980. But
now Huawei is effectively shut out of the best in class of custom-made chips, giving Samsung
and Apple a built-in advantage in handsets and network equipment.
It was no secret that Washington allowed Huawei to use loopholes in last year's blacklist
rules to continue to buy U.S. sourced chips. Now the door is closed, however, as the major
Taiwan foundries led by TSMC will be forced to stop custom production for Huawei, which is
basically out of business in about 90 days when its inventory of chips runs out. But even as
Huawei spirals down, the White House is declaring financial war on dozens of other listed
Chinese firms.
President Donald Trump said
in an interview with Fox Business News that forcing Chinese companies to follow U.S.
accounting norms would likely push them to list in non-U.S. exchanges. Chinese companies that
list their shares in the U.S. have long refused to allow American regulators to inspect their
accounting audits, citing direction from their government -- a practice that market authorities
here have been unwilling or unable to stop.
The attack by the Trump Administration on shoddy financial disclosure at Chinese firms is
long overdue, but comes at a time when the political evolution in China is turning decidedly
authoritarian in nature and against any pretense of market-oriented development. The rising
power of state companies in China parallels the accumulation of power in the hands of Xi
Jinping, who is increasingly seen as a threat to western-oriented business leaders. The trade
tensions with Washington provide a perfect foil to crack down on popular unrest in Hong Kong
and discipline wayward oligarchs.
The latest moves by Beijing to take full control in Hong Kong are part of the more general
retrenchment visible in China. "[P]rivate entrepreneurs are increasingly nervous about their
future," writes Henny Sender in the Financial Times . "In many cases, these
entrepreneurs have U.S. passports or green cards and both children and property in America. To
be paid in U.S. dollars outside China for their companies must look more tempting by the day."
A torrent of western oriented Chinese business leaders is exiting before the door is shut
completely.
The fact is that China's position in U.S. trade has retreated as nations like Mexico and
Vietnam have gained. Mexico is now America's largest trading partner and Vietnam has risen to
11th, reports Qian Wang of Bloomberg News . Meanwhile, China has dropped from 21 percent
of U.S. trade in 2018 to just 18 percent last year. A big part of the shift is due to the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade pact, which is expected to accelerate a return of production to North
America. Sourcing for everything from autos to semiconductors is expected to rotate away from
China in coming years.
China abandoned its decades-old practice of
setting a target for annual economic growth , claiming that it was prioritizing goals such
as stabilizing employment, alleviating poverty and preventing risks in 2020. Many observers
accept the official communist party line that the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic made it
almost impossible to fix an expansion rate this year, but in fact the lasting effects of the
2008 financial crisis and the aggressive policies of President Trump have rocked China back on
its heels.
As China becomes increasingly focused inward and with an eye on public security, the
economic situation is likely to deteriorate further. While many observers viewed China's "Belt
& Road" initiative as a sign of confidence and strength, in fact it was Beijing's attempt
to deal with an economic realignment that followed the 2008 crisis. The arrival of President
Trump on the scene further weakened China's already unstable mercantilist economic model, where
non-existent internal demand was supposed to make up for falling global trade flows. Or at
least this was the plan until COVID-19.
"Before the Covid-19 outbreak, many economists were expecting China to set a GDP growth
target of 6% to 6.5% to reflect the gradual slowdown in the pace of expansion over the past few
years," reports Caixin Global . "Growth slid to 6.1% in 2019 from 6.7% in 2018. But the
devastation caused by the coronavirus epidemic -- which saw the economy contract 6.8%
year-on-year in the first quarter -- has thrown those forecasts out of the window."
Out of the window indeed. Instead of presiding over a glorious expansion of the Chinese
sphere of influence in Asia, Xi Jinping is instead left to fight a defensive action
economically and financially. The prospective end of the special status of Hong Kong is
unlikely to have any economic benefits and may actually cause China's problems with massive
internal debt and economic malaise to intensify. Beijing's proposed security law would reduce
Hong Kong's separate legal status and likely bring an end to the separate currency and business
environment.
I honestly don't know if this article is or is not correct... But I wonder...
AmConMag publishes a major anti-China article on most days now. What is happening? What is
the mechanics of this... "phenomenon"?
A place where where Americans opposed to U.S. hegemony because it's harm on everyone
without being overwhelmed by the Neocon acolytes where can we go, anyone ever try to get a
word in on foxnews ?
If you try to reach out to twitter on Tom Cotton or Mike Waltz dismisses you as a
'Chinese govt / Iranian / Russian bot'
You know what, God will judge us and we will all be equal in he eyes of Him
Why should I be afraid. Why should I be silent. And thank you TAC for the opportunity to
post.
I too came here for interesting commentary, - and even better comments... five years ago or
so?
I found the original articles mostly okay, often too verbose, meandering for my taste but
the different point of view made them worthwhile. The readers' comments, now that is
priceless. That brings the real value. That's where we learn. That's where I learn, anyway.
:)
It never occurred to me to message to any politician, I think my voice would be lost in the
cacophony.
The target of my curiosity is that when all these articles start to point in one direction
(like belligerence toward China) how does it happen? Is there a chain of command? It seems
coordinated.
It's possible to be anti-neocon, for their being too ideological, and not pacifist. That is
basically my position.
I agree with most here on Russia and Iran. They are not threats, and in specific cases
should be partners instead. Agree on American imperialism being foolish and often evil. I
believe in a multipolar world as a practical matter. I don't take a soft view of China
however. I believe they do intend to replace nefarious American hegemony with their own
relevant, but equally nefarious, flavor of hegemony. There are few countries in the world
with such a pathological distrust of their own people. I truly believe that country is a
threat that needs to be checked at least for a couple of decades by the rest of the
world.
As to the editorial direction, I think it is merely capitalism. China's perception in
the world is extremely bad lately. I would fully expect the always somewhat Russophile
environment here to seize the moment to say 'see! Russia is not a true threat! It's China!'
RT itself soon after Trump's election I recall posted an article complaining about total
disregard for Chinese election meddling.
You can see when the people holding the leash give a tug on the collar. And it's clear that
the GOP is feeling the need for a warlike political environment.
The most blatant presstitution example, of course, was the National Review, going from
'Never Trump' to full time servicing.
Despite the economic ravages of the pandemic, the Pentagon continues to demand the lion's
share of the U.S. budget. It wants another $705 billion for 2021, after increasing its budget
by 20 percent between 2016 and 2020.
This appalling waste of government resources has already caused long-term damage to the
economic competitiveness of the United States. But it's all the money the Pentagon is spending
on "deterring China" that might prove more devastating in the short term.
The U.S. Navy announced
this month that it was sending its entire forward-deployed sub fleet on "contingency
response operations" as a warning to China. Last month, the U.S. Navy Expeditionary Strike
Group
sailed into the South China Sea to support Malaysia's oil exploration in an area that China
claims. Aside from the reality that oil exploration makes no economic sense at a time of record
low oil prices, the United States should be helping the countries bordering the South China Sea
come to a fair resolution of their disputes, not throwing more armaments at the problem.
There's also heightened risk of confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea, and
even in outer space . A huge portion of the Pentagon's budget goes toward preparing for war
with China -- and, frankly, provoking war as well.
What does this all have to do with the Great Disentanglement?
The close economic ties between the United States and China have always represented a
significant constraint on military confrontation. Surely the two countries would not risk
grievous economic harm by coming to blows. Economic cooperation also provides multiple channels
for resolving conflicts and communicating discontent. The United States and Soviet Union never
had that kind of buffer.
If the Great Disentanglement goes forward, however, then the two countries have less to lose
economically in a military confrontation. Trading partners, of course, sometimes go to war with
one another. But as the data
demonstrates , more trade generally
translates into less war.
There are lots and lots of problems in the U.S.-China economic relationship. But they pale
in comparison to World War III.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign
Policy In Focus , where this article originally appeared.
I haven't written anything about Putin in awhile, and his teleconference about Russia's "labour
market situation" provides an excellent opportunity. What you'll read illustrates the
acutely dramatic difference in policy between Russia and the Outlaw US Empire when it comes
to supporting its populous:
"Once again, preserving the jobs and incomes of Russian families has been one of our top
priorities since day one of our efforts to counter the epidemic. This, of course, is a fair
approach and a fair principle, because people should always be our priority ." [My
Emphasis]
To be fair, Trump and Congress do favor some of the people--those at and associated with
Wall Street--and what we've seen is those people are certainly Trump and Congress's priority,
but not so much anyone else. Contrast that with Russia's policy:
"We have established a key, basic criterion for supporting businesses. From the outset, we
have organised our work exactly this way: preserving the workforce and salaries is a
priority . We offered incentives whereby companies and entrepreneurs who take care of
their employees and strive to retain them, can count on greater support from the state. By
that, I also mean direct subsidies to pay salaries at small- and medium-sized businesses in
the affected industries in an amount equivalent to one minimum wage per employee in April and
May, as well as easy-term loans with a 2 percent interest rate. These loans will be repaid by
the state, as agreed, if staffing at a given company remains at the current level." [My
Emphasis]
The above isn't the total policy, of course. Also note the tone of Putin's remarks, which
have actually remained very consistent over his tenure as Russia's leader:
"We need to analyse and look deep into the problems of every person that asks for
help , especially elderly people and pre-pensioners. This also applies to graduates of
universities, colleges and academies that are finishing their studies and starting to
work.
"It is necessary to look for suitable jobs in cooperation with companies, organisations
and employers. These things must not be left to luck. It is necessary to offer snap courses,
as well as education and retraining programmes for those who have lost their jobs." [My
Emphasis]
By comparison, what do we see from UK, EU and Outlaw US Empire? Pretty much the
opposite--unless you're in the top 10% who won't risk losing one cent--it's a Free Market
where you're free to sink to your doom. Putin in contrast agreed to extend unemployment to
October 1 and prior to that time will reexamine the state of the labour market to determine
if that deadline needs to be extended again--policy that's the polar opposite of that within
the Outlaw US Empire. What's somewhat astonishing is the Outlaw US Empire has about 130
million of its people unemployed while Russia's entire population is about 145 million but
doesn't have a parasite that demands being continually fed massive amounts of money--about $8
Trillion for the first third of 2020.
Funding
The Center for Public Integrity has received contributions from a number of left-leaning
foundation funders including the Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network Fund, Foundation to Promote
Open Society, Knight Foundation, and MacArthur Foundation.[3] The foundation has stated that
it no longer accepts corporate gifts, but it takes money from the private foundations of many
of the richest Americans including actor Leonardo DiCaprio.
Seems to be the parent of the UK government's Integrity Initiative boondoggle
Trump claims that the resolution was "based on misunderstandings of facts and law." The
only allegedly incorrect fact he mentions is the existence of open hostilities between the
United States and Iran, but that's merely a reflection of the time when the measure was
drafted. Besides, the two countries are still not exactly at peace with each other, thanks
in part to the president.
Trump is the one who is clearly mistaken regarding the law. He insists, as he did in
January, that the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was sufficient justification for killing Soleimani, but as the American Conservative's
Daniel Larison opined, "There is no honest reading of that resolution that supports this
interpretation." In addition, he claims that he derives his war-making power from Article
II of the Constitution, yet that article specifically states that "the president shall be
commander in chief of the [armed forces] when called into the actual service of the United
States." (Emphasis added.) And who gets to call them into service? According to Article I,
Congress does, by declaring war.
Trump doubles down on this unsupportable assertion in his next paragraph:
The resolution implies that the President's constitutional authority to use military
force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack.
That is incorrect. We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution
recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries' next moves and
take swift and decisive action in response. That's what I did!
This is on a par with Trump's declaration over the states re-opening: he declared: "When
somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way
it's got to be."
This lunatic thinks he's Caesar!
Anyone who thinks he won't start a new war - somewhere - is delusional. He may not start
one *before* the election, but if he wins, what about *after*? And i wouldn't even be sure
about "before". He's dumb enough to think - or be convinced by his neocon advisers - that he
could get a "war President" boost in the polls if he starts one before the election. After
all, the one time he got a boost in the polls was when he attacked Syria over the bogus
"chemical weapons" incidents. So I wouldn't rule anything out.
by
Los Angeles TimesUS Public Remain the Tacit Accomplice in America's Dead End Wars
Honor the fallen, but not every war they were sent to fight by Andrew Bacevich
Tweet
Share
Mail
Share
Share
19
Comments A U.S. soldier fires an anti-tank rocket during a live-fire exercise in Zabul
province, Afghanistan, in July 2010. (Photo: U.S. Army /flickr/cc) Not
least among the victims claimed by the coronavirus pandemic was a poetry recital that was to
have occurred in March at a theater in downtown Boston.
I had been invited to read aloud a poem, and I chose "On a Soldier Fallen in the
Philippines," written in 1899 by William Vaughn Moody (1869-1910). You are unlikely to have
heard of the poet or his composition. Great literature, it is not. Yet its message is
memorable.
The subject of Moody's poem is death, a matter today much on all our minds. It recounts the
coming home of a nameless American soldier, killed in the conflict commonly but misleadingly
known as the Philippine Insurrection.
In 1898, U.S. troops landed in Manila to oust the Spanish overlords who had ruled the
Philippines for more than three centuries. They accomplished this mission with the dispatch
that a later generation of U.S. forces demonstrated in ousting regimes in Kabul and Baghdad.
Yet as was the case with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars of our own day, real victory proved
elusive.
Back in Washington, President McKinley decided that having liberated the Philippines, the
United States would now keep them. The entire archipelago of several thousand islands was to
become an American colony.
McKinley's decision met with immediate disfavor among Filipinos. To oust the foreign
occupiers, they mounted an armed resistance. A vicious conflict ensued, one that ultimately
took the lives of 4,200 American soldiers and at least 200,000 Filipinos. In the end, however,
the United States prevailed.
Denying Filipino independence was the cause for which the subject of Moody's poem died.
Long since forgotten by Americans, the war to pacify the Philippines generated in its day
great controversy. Moody's poem is an artifact of that controversy. In it, he chastises those
who perform the rituals of honoring the fallen while refusing to acknowledge the dubious nature
of the cause for which they fought. "Toll! Let the great bells toll," he writes,
Till the clashing air is dim,
Did we wrong this parted soul?
We will make it up to him.
Toll! Let him never guess
What work we sent him to.
Laurel, laurel, yes.
He did what we bade him do.
Praise, and never a whispered hint
but the fight he fought was good;
In actuality, the fight was anything but good. It was ill-advised and resulted in great
evil. "On a Soldier Fallen in the Philippines" expresses a demand for reckoning with that evil.
Americans of Moody's generation rejected that demand, just as Americans today balk at reckoning
with the consequences of our own ill-advised wars.
Yet the imperative persists. "O banners, banners here," Moody concludes,
That he doubt not nor misgive!
That he heed not from the tomb
The evil days draw near
When the nation robed in gloom
With its faithless past shall strive.
Let him never dream that his bullet's scream
went wide of its island mark,
Home to the heart of his darling land
where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.
At the end of the 19th century, the United States stumbled and sinned in the dark by waging
a misbegotten campaign to advance nakedly imperial ambitions. At the beginning of the 21st
century, new wars became the basis of comparable sin. The war of Moody's time and the wars of
our own have almost nothing in common except this: In each instance, through their passivity
disguised as patriotism, the American people became tacitly complicit in wrongdoing committed
in their name.
It is no doubt too glib by half to claim that today, besieged by a virus, we are reaping the
consequences caused by our refusal to reckon with past sins. Yet it is not too glib to argue
that the need for such a reckoning remains. Have we wronged the departed souls of those who
died -- indeed, are still dying -- in Afghanistan and Iraq? The question cries out for an
answer. In our cacophonous age, it just might be that we will find that answer in poetry.
This insane situation is only possible because people are sedated by mass media propaganda
and endless diversions from reality, writes Caitlin Johnstone.
T he world's worst Putin puppet is escalating tensions with Russia even further, with the
Trump administration looking at withdrawal from more nuclear treaties in the near future.
Moon of Alabama has
published a solid breakdown of all this, outlining the absence of evidence for the Trump
administration's justifications of its treaty withdrawals and explaining why China has nothing
whatsoever to gain by signing on to a trilateral New START Treaty. I have nothing to add to
this, other than to ask a simple question.
Do you consent to having a bunch of unseen military personnel
rolling the dice every day on the gamble that we won't wipe ourselves off the face of this
Earth in the confusion and chaos of rising hostilities due to miscommunication or technical
malfunction, as nearly happened many times during
the last cold war?
Do you consent to a
slow-motion third world war where an oligarch-led alliance of powerful nations works
tirelessly to absorb new nations into its imperial blob by any means necessary?
Do you consent to a world where weapons of Armageddon are brandished about by imbeciles with
inadequacy issues?
Do you consent to a world ruled by people who are so sociopathic that they are willing to
inflict endless mass military slaughter and risk a nuclear holocaust just to have more control
over the world population?
Do you consent to a world where we risk literally everything because a few overeducated,
under-mothered think tankers were able to market an idea called "unipolarity" at key points of
interest after the fall of the Soviet Union?
Do you consent to a world where powerful governments team up like a bunch of bitchy mean
girls against weaker nations that aren't in their clique?
Do you consent to governments spending lives, resources and treasure on bloodbaths around
the globe and treating terrestrial life itself like some trivial plaything instead of ensuring
the thriving of their own populations?
Does this seem like health to you?
Does this seem like sanity to you?
Is any of this something you want? Something you consent to?
Of course not. These questions are all redundant. Nobody with a healthy mind and a clear
picture of what's going on would consent to this madness, no matter what nation they live
in.
This whole insane model was rolled out without your consent. You were never asked if you
consented, because the answer would have been no.
Nobody gives their conscious and informed consent to this. The new cold war is as consensual
as sex after a Rohypnol-spiked drink, and the illusion of consent is just as nefariously and
artificially manufactured. People are roofied into sedation by mass media propaganda and
endless diversion from reality, and then power has its way with us.
If people were actually given informed consent about what is done in their name, none of
this would be happening. Weapons of war would have been destroyed long ago and we'd all be
working together in healthy collaboration with each other and with our ecosystem to ensure a
healthy, happy world for our children and our grandchildren.
There is no reason we cannot have such a world. We are the many, they are the few. They
manufacture our consent because they absolutely require that consent. A population which will
not be propagandized is a population which cannot be ruled.
All we have to do is inform each other about what's really going on. Then informed consent
can exist. And be withdrawn.
Those who consent include a large fraction of ignorant CIA/MSM-bedazzled young men, mere
punks looking for excuses to destroy something to aggrandize themselves to prove that they
are not teenagers anymore.
Their relatives and friends may not be so sure, but are nearly all cowards who will never
object to the mass media narrative.
They live in fear of, and social and economic dependence upon their tribes of church and
town, led by low-end tyrants who demand power as fake defenders, by posing with flag and
cross, and inventing foreign enemies behind every tree.
This class of the ignorant never sees beyond mass media narrative, so reform requires
eliminating oligarchy mass media.
The gang operation that DC has become, requires rethinking the institutions of democracy,
to preclude corruption.
Also rethinking of the means of action, as we no longer control those tools, and need new
tools to restore democracy.
Nearly all agree that only the most extreme collapse or conquest would permit forcible
restoration of democracy.
In the age of advanced weapons, that would require international embargo and a very deep and
prolonged recession.
Restoration by reason presumes that intellectuals somehow lead when instability and anger
weaken the corrupt.
The core problem is the structure of a democracy that prevents the corruption by money
that has made the tools of democracy serve money power, including all branches of federal
government and mass media. Most educated people have little time to consider the reforms
needed. But it is not difficult to design a democracy not susceptible to corruption by money,
and the tribal cabals of factions.
Moi , May 27, 2020 at 08:43
With trillion dollar "defence" spending (including black) the US needs to learn a simple
thing about "you break it, you own it."
The phrase means if you break it, you pay reparations. It does not mean that you actually
own it.
michael888 , May 27, 2020 at 07:44
As Leroy Fletcher Prouty explains in his book "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to
Assassinate Kennedy", war is essential to those at the top for easy profits and to control
global resources. Although not particularly well written and redundant in many sections, the
book is conceptionally sound and sadly thought provoking. There are more forces undermining
than promoting peace, and at higher levels of society in the US and in the world.
Laurence , May 26, 2020 at 23:31
Seems like a mainstream myth you are falling back on–calling Trump the Putin Puppet.
I wonder if you believe in all that rhetoric of Russia-Gate??
Just finished reading a book I highly recommend about history of Russia in our modern era,
and the Russian-American relationship and who is to gain from having one another as enemies.
(the book: Power of Impossible Ideas by Sharon Tennison) We need to be giving each other
respect for all of us to go forward, and not by parroting snipes! Russia and the US and China
stand to gain from cooperation. And we lose by confrontation.
Randal Marlin , May 26, 2020 at 17:50
Of course I agree with Caitlin Johnstone regarding all of her questions. But the one that
raises the most frightening, because realistic, question is: "Do you consent to having a
bunch of unseen military personnel rolling the dice every day on the gamble that we won't
wipe ourselves off the face of this Earth in the confusion and chaos of rising hostilities
due to miscommunication or technical malfunction, as nearly happened many times during the
last cold war?"
Iran shooting down a passenger plane in the wake of verbal escalation by U.S. President
Donald Trump's Administration is an example of the kind thing that can happen. What if the
plane shot down had been a U.S. military plane or warship? The lesson should be that verbal
escalation is not worth the risk. This is not a poker game, or if in some people's minds it
is, they should be not be permitted to get anywhere near decision-making in the matter.
anon4d2 , May 27, 2020 at 11:29
Are you alluding to a potential or actual aircraft shoot-down by Iran?
Perhaps you recall the passenger plane of Iran shot down by the US?
rosemerry , May 26, 2020 at 17:02
We can see by the way we are being treated during this pandemic that people do not seem to
have any idea what terrible decisions their leaders have already made, even just this
century. No regard for facts or truth, constant blaming and paranoia about "national
security" while ignoring evidence of advancing deaths in all our technically advanced
"democracies".
The whole assumption by POTUSTRUMP that Covid-19 is in motion just to stop his re-election
(he really seems to believe this-worse than WMD!) and that Big Pharma making money from a
vaccine is vitally urgent,( not cooperation with China perhaps even making a vaccine which it
would give to the rest of us) shows how far we have descended since the USA "won the Cold
War" but decided that world destruction was worthwhile anyway.
DH Fabian , May 26, 2020 at 16:54
Democrats and their party loyalists spent over three years trying to build support for war
against Russia. As Trump increased US/NATO troops near the Russian border (provocation), and
reinforced economic sanctions against Russia, one would think Democrats would be delighted.
Have you placed your bet yet, on whether Democrats will blame Russia or Chna for a 2020
defeat?
Moi , May 26, 2020 at 16:37
Government of the people, by the people, for the people and the people's name is Koch.
DW Bartoo , May 26, 2020 at 15:52
"No!" To a New Cold War against Russia and China.
"Yes!" To a sane, humane, and sustainable future for all.
Deceit, and the manipulation behind it, and Diversions, and the lack of greater curiosity
and attention paid to the deceits, along with cultural myths of superiority, the inculcation
of which falls to media and academia, all must be understood for what they are, their
purpose, and their consequences. and who, very specifically benefit$ from
things-as-they-are.
How many, however, dare question their culture?
Either the one they were born into or chose to embrace?
How often have those living in and identifying themselves with empire, found the courage
to question, to challenge, aloud, the myths, the unexamined assumptions?
Especially when the cost of doing so risks livelihood, social standing, and relationships,
be they with family, friends, or lovers?
Yet, what alternative have human beings of conscience?
Once one has come to understand those things which you, Caitlin, have fairly presented as
evidence of insanity, greed, and the lust for total control, what honest course is there but
to risk loss, to risk shunning, and even impoverishment?
Specifically, how many toil away at "jobs" which further entrench oligarchy, tyranny, and
authoritarian interests?
How many choose, again and yet again, to participate in rigged "electoral" processes, the
only purpose of which is to legitimize oligarchy, tyranny, and authoritarian power while
furthering the merest pretense of "democracy", that the sham may continue.
In a real and genuine democracy, would not the many actually get to vote on the question
of war? On healthcare for all, as a human right? On housing? On meaningful endeavor?
In other words, should not the many actually get to vote on policy, not on personalities
and cultural dog-whistle rhetorical devices which function simply to set the many against
each other?
To change the culture from militarized empire, profound understanding must be engaged, not
because the issues are especially complex, however convoluted the manipulatory rhetoric might
make things appear, or vicious the fallacious arguments used in favor of war might be;
"You are either with us or against us!", for example which is the classic phrase of "argument
with a stick", meaning an implied threat, but rather that far too many people were never
encouraged to engage in the critical thinking process, at all.
An honest educational system would do that, from the earliest grades.
An honest media, would also present useful information, not slant stories to inculcate the
fear, loathing, and confusion necessary to start wars based on lies, and notions of foreign
monsters all, inevitably, referred to as "the new Hitler", though Putin has been
well-villified and, in the U$, "liberals" and "deplorables", alike, are being told that China
is a land of authoritarian thieves who "stole our jobs", lied about (and "invented or
created") the coronavirus, and intend to rule the world.
An honest media would present actual, useful information and not coerce thought or
understanding in specific ways, telling people what and how to "see" or "not see" things.
The legacy media simply refuses to be anything but a propaganda tool.
Thus, U$ians, in particular, but people in "the west", generally, are fed a steady diet of
untruths, half-truths, unbaked idiocy, and triumphal imperialism.
Frankly, considering, along with the domestic propaganda, all the saber-rattling,
heartless economic sanctions, military bullying, and nuclear weapons buildup of both the
Obama and Trump regimes, the rest of the world, especially Russia and China, the nations of
this planet have been very patient with the U$ and its coalition of whatever, including
Australia, but especially the U.K.
One does wonder how much longer such patience might last as The Empire lashes out,
evermore recklessly, relentlessly, and foolishly?
Yes, a great mutual educational outreach is required.
However, it must entail listening and building bridges of shared interests and common
plight and not much admonition, signaling, or preening.
What common vision may members of the human family, those not caught up in the "Great
Game", develop that will permit our species, indeed, all of terrestrial life, a future worth
having?
Say, even another ten or twenty thousand years, that we, collectively, might gain a wee
bit more understanding and a great deal more compassion.
What would that look like?
How would it feel?
Might that be worth thinking about?
Beyond deceit and diversion
AnneR , May 27, 2020 at 11:44
Yes, D Bartoo.
And if you include NPR and the BBC World Service in your "legacy media" then today there
have been examples a-plenty:
NPR: In a piece on the forthcoming election and the states trying to prepare for managing
polling stations, voters while trying to prevent any potential spread of COVID-19, the
"reporter" raised – guess what? – the need for states to "prevent a repeat of
Russian [i.e. the Kremlin] hacking" and thus, I presume, altering/affecting the results. This
statement provided no evidence, but as declared as if it were unassailable fact. (As I recall
this claim had been debunked within a short time of the Blue Faces and their media supporters
raising it.)
BBC: They broadcast a ten minute "History" piece – repeated at least once within two
hours. The subject of this segment often seems to coincide with some act that the
US/UK/IS/NATO (you name the western grouping) wants the listener to ignore, be ignorant of;
the intention seems, as today, to be to deflect attention from here to there. Or to support
whatever it is that the western world wants to happen. So today's piece was all about the
South Korean protests against the military government, in the late 1980s, and the violence,
largely, according to the broadcast, committed by the government's forces against the
protestors who were demonstrating for: democracy. Hint, Hint.
Both BBC and NPR: They both made much of the Hong Kong police's use, this time, of tear
gas and pepperballs (never have either broadcasters, throughout last year's demos, mentioned
the violence done by the demonstrators: the killing and beating up of those Hong Kong people
who dared to disagree openly with them, the brick throwing, the attacks on buildings and so
on; just as they rarely if ever, and then without ever mentioning the brutal violence of the
French cops, reported the peaceful weekly protests by the Gilets Jaunes) against the
demonstrators.
Even as they basically criticized the HK police their reportage on the completely brutal,
unwarranted murder of George Floyd and the follow up demonstrations, they mentioned the tear
gas used by the police to stop the protests but not any other means that the police may have
used (rubber bullets, possibly stun grenades – these latter caused many serious
injuries among the Gilets Jaunes).
Dave , May 26, 2020 at 15:30
A polemic of sorts, but much needed in these days of rabid running amok by some of the
most despicable and vicious politicians and economic oligarchs in the sad history of the
human species. Let's hope these perverse creatures disappear quietly into the sunset in the
next month or two, or maybe some encouragement is needed to accomplish that much desired
end.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , May 26, 2020 at 15:09
And I'd like to add the thought: when have the people ever consented to any of
Washington's many wars, cold or hot?
From the holocaust in Vietnam to the holocaust in the Middle East?
The power establishment does what it wants and drags you along.
DH Fabian , May 26, 2020 at 16:57
That's the key point. It honestly doesn't matter what the "masses" think. The ruling
duopoly have their own agenda, and one way or another, we must obey.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , May 26, 2020 at 15:01
"New Cold War?"
Given the remarkably hostile words and acts coming from Washington, I'm more concerned
about a hot war.
Withdrawing from treaties is certainly threatening, and the US has done a lot of that
recently, but it has done so much more, too.
The words and acts go beyond anything I recall during the Cold War.
Openly assassinating another country's national hero? Almost bragging about it?
Placing a bounty on the head of a twice-elected national leader?
Declaring the threatening phrase, "full-spectrum dominance," as a national purpose in the
world?
Trying to impose American law on everyone who is not American through a vast network of
illegal sanctions?
Displaying contempt for many important international institutions and organizations?
Quitting some of them? Threatening some? Demanding others serve its own purposes? UN. WHO.
ICC. WTO. UNESCO. OPCW. UNRWA.
Ignoring the rule of law openly throughout the Middle East, on the high seas, and in Latin
America?
Displaying no spirit of international cooperation, even during a medical emergency. At
least in the days of the Cold War, the US always tried to appear cooperative about disasters
and about international organizations. It was often the first to offer some assistance. Now,
it does not bother.
Relentlessly attacking the world's other great power, China, with genuine slander and
lies. Doing so daily with no pretence to science or legality.
Jeff Harrison , May 27, 2020 at 10:42
Unfortunately, we will continue to do everything you describe until other countries of the
world make it clear that the US is no longer welcome there.
I know a bipolar world when I see one. I spent my first 45 years in one: the
world of the Cold War, dominated
by the USA and the USSR
.
That bipolar
world ended twenty-nine years ago. For a while
thereafter the USA stood supreme, economically and militarily.
We still do, actually, on indices like per capita GDP and forces deployed overseas.
Communist China's been coming up fast, though. It's plain they are aiming for parity with us,
regional -- I mean, in Asia -- if not global .
Perhaps they are aiming for global dominance.
Whether they are or not, we are heading into a bipolar world once again. People are waking
up fast to this. The coronavirus
pandemic has us thinking and
talking about
China in a way that we weren't before, not in the public realm at any rate. Some sour-faced
skeptics and grouches on the commentarial fringes, like your acerbically genial
Radio Derb host , were talking that way; now it's well-nigh universal.
As I write this, China's national legislature, the National People's Congress,
has just completed the first day of its 2020 annual session. Here are a couple of
headliners from this first day:
For the first time in thirty years, there will be no
announced target for GDP growth this year -- that's Gross Domestic Product, a key economic
indicator. There will be revisions to the Basic Law that defines the status of Hong Kong. The
point of the revisions will be to "safeguard national security in Hong Kong." [ NPC: China's congress will be
about Hong Kong, the virus and the economy , BBC, May 24, 2020]
What does any of this mean. And why should Americans care?
To take the first part of that question first: What it means is that these are some
of the decisions worked out by the ChiCom Party bosses in secret meetings these past
weeks.
I italicized the words "some of" in that last sentence to emphasize that these are decisions
the Party bosses want to make public. For sure there are many more they don't want made
public.
The NPC is not really a legislature in any dictionary sense. It's Totalitarian Theater.
There is very occasionally -- two or three times per decade -- some muffled resistance to
edicts from the Politburo; but even those have had a staged quality about them, and were
probably just a theatrical way of settling some minor power struggle at the top.
Still, the NPC is not without value for outside observers. The things that are announced,
like the two items I have noted, give clues as to what the Party bosses are thinking. Carefully
scrutinized and sensibly interpreted, they can give us the lie of the land.
China's economic pincer.
From my first point about the NPC announcements -- about there being no GDP growth target
this year–we can deduce that the ChiComs are seriously worried about China's economy.
Like our economy and everyone else's, China's economy has taken a big hit from the pandemic
and the measures taken to slow or contain it. There have been huge employment losses in both
manufacturing and services, in a nation with much less of a social safety net than ours [
A
slump exposes holes in China's welfare state , Economist, May 7 2020].
"There are, in other words, upwards of 78m people who are out of a job and are receiving
no benefits." https://t.co/5sJSMNNCcy
The thought of a couple hundred million hungry, angry, unemployed workers gives ChiCom
bosses the heebie-jeebies.
And this couldn't be happening at a worse time for China's economy, which is looking at a
pincer trap. I'll describe the two arms of the pincer in turn as 1) the Past Arm and 2) the
Future Arm.
The past thirty years have been a sensational boom time for China, with living standards
rising faster, I think, than anywhere else, ever, in modern history. By the end of the 2010s,
though, the low-hanging fruit had all been picked, and the rate of improvement was slowing.
That is one arm of the economic pincer -- call it the Past Arm.
And now there is widespread anger and suspicion towards China among its former trading
partners -- the countries that, by opening their markets and exporting their factories, made
the Chinese economic miracle possible. The developed countries of North America, Western
Europe, and Australasia are waking to the fact that we have sold the Chinese Communist Party a
whole lot of rope
with a gift card attached saying " Please Hang Us ." They are
backing off from China.
There is even talk of boycotts. In a poll done mid-May, forty percent of Americans said they
won't buy products made in China. [
Americans Are Giving Made-in-China the Cold Shoulder, by Brendan Murray, Bloomberg, May
17, 2020 ]
So, looking forward, the era of Western countries blithely helping the ChiComs to
consolidate their power, domestic popularity, and international influence by jacking up their
economy, are over.
That's the other arm of the pincer -- call it the Future Arm.
The Past Arm: no more low-hanging fruit.
The Future Arm: no more illusions about the regime we've been enabling this past thirty
years.
What the status of Hong Kong means
What the ChiComs are proposing for Hong Kong reinforces the Future Arm of the economic
pincer.
Under the agreement with Britain that handed the city back to China 23 years ago, the
ChiComs promised that Hong Kongers would enjoy British levels of social and political freedom,
or at least something closer to them than the mainland dictatorship, until 2047.
Well, that promise will no longer be operative. It was just a convenient lie assented to by
the ChiComs while they pumped up their economy.
I spoke of the NPC giving us clues about the lie of the land behind the closed doors of
ChiCom deliberating. Lie of the land? Politically, China is the
Land of the Lie . Strategic lying is not just an occasional aberration in their diplomacy,
it is all of it.
ORDER IT NOW
The Hong Kong demonstrators this past year have shown feisty spirit
[ Rally against
HK national security law on Sunday , by Jeff Pao, Asia Times, May 22, 2020].
It's not likely that bringing the city back into the warm embrace of the Motherland can be
accomplished without highly visible repression, possibly on the scale of Tiananmen Square in
1989, but much more amply recorded in this age of the cellphone camera. [ Hong Kong
Protest Movement Left Reeling by China's Power Grab , by Vivian Wang and Austin Ramzy,
NYT , May 24, 2020]
That will just further reinforce the ChiComs' image as a thuggish gangster clique,
fortifying the Future Arm of the pincer, shredding any illusions Western populations still have
about the nature of the ChiCom regime.
Did I mention Tiananmen Square? Eh: just a few antisocial troublemakers in need of stern law
enforcement. Tibet, Taiwan, and Eastern
Turkestan ? Integral parts of China since ancient times. Fifty years of autonomy for Hong
Kong? Absolutely! -- where do we sign? If we are admitted to the World Trade Organization,
shall we observe the rules? Of course we shall! COVID-19 originated in China? Certainly not; it
was brought in by visiting U.S. soldiers. [ China
Spins Tale That the U.S. Army Started the Coronavirus Epidemic, by Steven Lee Myers,
NYT, March 13, 2020]
The world is awakening from its dream of China as a trustworthy commercial nation whose
public declarations mean what they say. Communist China is the Land of the Lie.
So this coming new bipolar world is nothing to worry about, right? The ChiComs are going to
get crushed in that economic pincer I've been describing, right? And Uncle Sam will sail on
forward into the middle 21st century as the dominant world power, right?
Well, there are many possible futures, and that is one of them. It's by no means the
most probable one, though. China has advantages, and we have dis -advantages, that could
shape the future in a Chinese direction.
I'd list China's main advantages as three:
Despotism, which makes it easier to get some
things done. A big Smart Fraction. Smart Fraction
Theory argues that "national wealth is determined by the fraction of workers with IQ equal
to or greater than some minimum value." [ The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of
Nations , La Griffe Du Lion, March 2002] Demographic homogeneity; low levels of ethnic
diversity and ethnomasochism
.
To the first point there, the one about despotism: Look, I really don't want to live
under the ChiComs; and I speak as a person who
did live under them for a year . There is no denying, though, that despotism has its
advantages, especially in technological development. Exhibit A : China's high-speed
rail system . Where is ours?
The second point, about a big Smart Fraction, has a link with the first. The name of the
link is "
eugenics ," both positive and negative.
Positive eugenics means
encouraging people with positive heritable traits to
breed; negative eugenics means dis -couraging -- or actually
forbidding -- people with negative traits to do so. The despotic power of course gets to
decide the definitions of "positive" and "negative" and the degree of coercion.
Are the ChiComs interested in eugenics? Oh yeah. I had things to say about this
in my November Diary last year , to which I refer you.
It's the third point that most powerfully addresses American weakness. China has some ethnic
diversity, but it's mostly out at the territorial fringes, in occupied Tibet, Mongolia, and
Eastern Turkestan. The great
majority of China's population -- and an overwhelming supermajority in metropolitan
China, away from those fringes -- is of a single
ethny . If the Chinese withdrew from those occupied fringes, China would be the world's
most homogenous big nation.
This spares China from all the rancors and disorders that sap so much of our social
and political energy.
"... In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22, 2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time, son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further. ..."
"... And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see himself that way. ..."
"... Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible. ..."
There are two stories that seem to have been under-reported in the past couple of weeks. The
first involves Michael Flynn's dealings with the Russian United Nations Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. And the second describes yet another bit of espionage conducted by a foreign country
directed against the United States. Both stories involve the State of Israel.
The bigger story is, of course, the dismissal by Attorney General William Barr of the
criminal charges against former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn based on
malfeasance by the FBI investigators. The curious aspect of the story as it is being related by
the mainstream media is that it repeatedly refers to Flynn as having unauthorized contacts with
the Russian Ambassador and then having lied about it. The implication is that there was
something decidedly shady about Flynn talking to the Russians and that the Russians were up to
something.
In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22,
2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating
was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy,
meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass
without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each
delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution.
Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not
agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23
rd .
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks
be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong, but the media is
acting like there was some kind of Kremlin conspiracy seeking to undermine U.S. democracy. It
would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team and
Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump
overtures since he voted contrary to Flynn's request.
The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack
Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time,
son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have
extensive
ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the
Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's
illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared
has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the
relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance.
All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with
the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis
were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express
their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of
foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made
by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence
terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see
himself that way.
Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the
Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on
behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United
States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As
Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part
of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was
and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible.
The
second story , which has basically been made to disappear, relates to spying by Israel
against critics in the United States. The revelation that Israel was again using its
telecommunications skills to spy on foreigners came from an Oakland California federal court
lawsuit initiated by Facebook (FB) against the Israeli surveillance technology company NSO
Group. FB claimed that NSO has been using servers located in the United States to infect with
spyware hundreds of smartphones being used by attorneys, journalists, human rights activists,
critics of Israel and even of government officials. NSO allegedly used WhatsApp, a messaging
app owned by FB, to hack into the phones and install malware that would enable the company to
monitor what was going on with the devices. It did so by employing networks of remote servers
located in California to enter the accounts.
NSO has inevitably claimed that they do indeed provide spyware, but that it is sold to
clients who themselves operate it with the "advice and technical support to assist customers in
setting up" but it also promotes its products as being "used to stop terrorism, curb violent
crime, and save lives." It also asserts that its software cannot be used against U.S. phone
numbers.
Facebook, which did its own extensive research into NSO activity, alleges that NSO rented a
Los Angeles-based server from a U.S. company called QuadraNet that it then used to launch 720
hacks on smartphones and other devices. It further claims in the court filing that the company
reverse-engineering WhatsApp, using an program that it developed to access WhatsApp's servers
and deploy "its spyware against approximately 1,400 targets" before " covertly transmit[ting]
malicious code through WhatsApp servers and inject[ing]" spyware into telephones without the
knowledge of the owners."
The filing goes on to assert that the "Defendants had no authority to access WhatsApp's
servers with an imposter program, manipulate network settings, and commandeer the servers to
attack WhatsApp users. That invasion of WhatsApp's servers and users' devices constitutes
unlawful computer hacking."
NSO, which is largely staffed by former (sic) Israeli intelligence officers, had previously
been in the news for its proprietary spyware known as Pegasus, which "can gather information
about a mobile phone's location, access its camera, microphone and internal hard drive, and
covertly record emails, phone calls and text messages." Pegasus was reportedly used in the
killing of Saudi dissident journalist Adnan Kashoggi in Istanbul last year and it has more
recently been suggested as a resource for tracking coronavirus distance violators. Outside
experts have accused the company of selling its technology and expertise to countries that have
used it to spy on dissidents, journalists and other critics.
Israel routinely exploits the access provided by its telecommunications industry to spy on
the host countries where those companies operate. The companies themselves report regularly
back to Mossad contacts and the technology they provide routinely has a "backdoor" for secretly
accessing the information accessible through the software. In fact, Israel conducts espionage
and influence operations both directly and through proxies against the United States more
aggressively than any other "friendly" country, which once upon a time included being able to
tap into the "secure" White House phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica
Lewinsky.
Last September, it was revealed that the placement of technical surveillance devices by
Israel in Washington D.C. was clearly intended to target cellphone communications to and from
the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats with top aides and friends on
non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations involving Trump with the
expectation that the security-averse president would say things off the record that might be
considered top secret.
A Politicoreport
detailed how "miniature surveillance devices" referred to as "Stingrays" were used to imitate
regular cell phone towers to fool phones being used nearby into providing information on their
locations and identities. According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians
as "international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture
the contents of calls and data use."
Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that
indicated the presence of the surveillance devices near the White House. Forensic analysis
involved dismantling the devices to let them "tell you a little about their history, where the
parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them, and that will help get
you to what the origins are." One source observed afterwards that "It was pretty clear that the
Israelis were responsible."
So two significant stories currently making the rounds have been bowdlerized and disappeared
to make the Israeli role in manipulating and spying against the United States go away. They are
only two of many stories framed by a Zionist dominated media to control the narrative in a way
favorable to the Jewish state. One would think that having a president of the United States who
is the most pro-Israel ever, which is saying a great deal in and of itself, would be enough,
but unfortunately when dealing with folks like Benjamin Netanyahu there can never be any
restraint when dealing with the "useful idiots" in Washington.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
The new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has apparently learned how to behave from the Corbyn
experience. He has been crawling on his belly to Jewish interests ever since he took over and
has even submitted to the counseling provided by the government's "Independent Adviser on
Antisemitism," a special interests office not too dissimilar to the abomination at the U.S.
State Department where Elan Carr is the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating
anti-Semitism.
The adviser, Lord Mann, who like Carr is of course Jewish, has now insisted to Starmer that
the use of words like ''Zionist'' or ''Zionism'' in a critical context must be regarded as
anti-Semitism if Starmer wants to establish what he refers to as "comprehensive anti-racism"
within the Labour Party. Mann wants to confront what he refers to as "anti-Jewish racism" in
Britain, saying that "the thing Keir Starmer has to do is stick with the clear definition of
antisemitism, and not waver from that. The second thing he should do if he wants to really
imbed comprehensive anti-racism including antisemitism across the Labour Party – then the
use of the words Zionist or Zionism as a term of hatred, abuse, of contempt, as a negative term
– that should outlawed in the party."
Perhaps not surprisingly Lord Mann's comments came during an online discussion with the
Antisemitism Policy Trust's director Danny Stone, one of the major components of Israel's
powerful U.K. Jewish/Zionist Lobby. A majority of British Members of Parliament of both parties
are registered supporters of "Friends of Israel" associations, another indication of how Jewish
power is manifest in Britain and of how spineless the country's politicians have become.
Mann added: "If he does that, it gives him [Starmer] the tools to clear out those who choose
to be antisemitic, rather than those who do so purely through their ignorance as opposed to
their calculated behavior. I think he is seeing tackling antisemitism as one of those things
that will be shown to mark that he is a leader."
So, in Britain you are still presumably free to criticize Zionism, but not Israelis, as long
as you do not use the word itself. If you do use it in a critical way you will be one of those
presumably who will be "cleared out [of the Labour Party] for choosing to be antisemitic." Do
not be alarmed if similar nonsense takes hold in the United States, where already criticism of
Israel, such as it is, eschews the word Jewish in any context. Fearful of retribution that can
include loss of employment as happened to Rick Sanchez at CNN, the few who are bold enough to
criticize Israel regularly employ generic euphemisms like the "Israel Lobby" or "Zionism,"
ignoring the fact that what drives the process is ethno- or religious based. However one
chooses to obfuscate it, the power of Israel in the United States is undeniably based on Jewish
money, media control and easy access to politicians. When the friends of Israel in America
follow the British lead and figure out that the word Zionist has become pejorative they too
will no doubt move to make it unacceptable in polite discourse in the media and elsewhere. Then
many critics of the Jewish state will have no vocabulary left to use, nowhere to go, as in
Britain, and that is surely the intention.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
Excerpts...
Our arrival here went pretty smooth. I read my early blog on our arrival the other day and
remembered how shocked I was at the nice roads and homes we saw on the way from the airport
to Luga....
'Russian Hoax' has been exposed.... but still, the Russia narrative continues. The U.S.
media do not retract stories about Russia that are later found to be inaccurate. The Russian
Embassy pointed out recently that the NY Times won three Pulitzer prizes for reports on
Russian meddling and trolling that later proved to be wrong. There was never a
retraction. https://www.rt.com/usa/487842-new-york-times-russia-pulitzer/
American media can accuse Russia of anything from election collusion to cheating on COVID-19
figures. They don't need evidence to charge Russians with anything. And they know they won't
be held accountable when it turns out the info is not factual !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I admit all this Russia hoax has impacted me. There are so many misrepresentations in the
American news of life here and what Russia is like. I still see these articles and interviews
by those who know nothing about life here. Oksana and I have lost a few of our American
friends ("acquaintances" might be a better word). The suggestion that in some ways life is
better in
Russia offends some Americans. Politics becomes more important than friendships.
It is not just the misrepresentations of life in Russia. I have gotten to meet ex-pats or
folks who have spent a lot of time in other countries.
I've learned the American government has lied about those countries as well.
They share the same sense of frustration that we feel here. Right now, China is a possibility
for taking from Russia the top-spot in the list of countries America hates. Someone asked me
what I thought of how China handled the COVID crisis. I have no idea.
I don't know anyone in China. I read things in the American press that paints them as
deceptive, but these are the same !!!! media sources that I am absolutely sure lied about
Russia.
I did hear one Russian medical person who went there to study the situation in China when it
first broke.
He said the portrayal in the Western press was completely wrong.
After what I've seen here, I don't doubt it.
davidhabakkuk says: May
25, 2020 at 12:22 pm The kind of view of the end of the Cold War which underpins
Billingslea's notion that the United States can spend Russia and China into 'oblivion' is
that championed by people who totally failed to anticipate what happened in the Soviet
Union in the 'Eighties, and have not seen this fact as reason for rethinking the
assumptions that caused them to get things so radically wrong.
The extent of the incompetence involved is vividly apparent in the collection of
documents from the American and Soviet sides published by the 'National Security Archive'
in January 2017, under the title 'The Last Superpower Summits.'
Particularly revealing, to my mind, is Document 12, the transcript of the closed-door
testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the top three CIA analysts of the Soviet
Union, Doug MacEachin, Robert Blackwell, and Paul Ericson, at the precise moment, in
December 1988, when Gorbachev announced his 500,000 troop cut at the U.N.
The editors comment:
'And MacEachin offers a true confession in an extraordinary passage that demonstrates
how prior assumptions about Soviet behavior, rather than actual intelligence data points,
actually drove intelligence findings: "Now, we spend megadollars studying political
instability in various places around the world, but we never really looked at the Soviet
Union as a political entity in which there were factors building which could lead to the
kind of – at least the initiation of political transformation that we seem to see. It
does not exist to my knowledge. Moreover, had it existed inside the government, we never
would have been able to publish it anyway, quite frankly. And had we done so, people would
have been calling for my head. And I wouldn't have published it. In all honesty, had we
said a week ago that Gorbachev might come to the UN and offer a unilateral cut of 500,000
in the military, we would have been told we were crazy. We had a difficult enough time
getting air space for the prospect of some unilateral cuts of 50 to 60,000."
Actually, it was quite possible to do much better, without spending 'megadollars', if
one simply went to the Chatham House Library and/or the London Library and looked at what
competent analysts, like those working for the Foreign Policy Studies Program then run by
the late, great John Steinbruner at Brookings – a very different place then from
now.
Among those he employed were two of the best former intelligence analysts of Soviet
military strategy: Ambassador Raymond Garthoff and Commander Michael MccGwire, R.N., to
give them their titles when in government service.
These has devoted a great deal of effort to explaining that Professor Richard Pipes of
Harvard, a key influence in creating the 'groupthink' MacEachin described, had missed a
crucial transition away from nuclear war planning to conventional 'deep operations' in the
late 'Sixties and 'Seventies.
Inturn, this led Garthoff and MccGwire to grasp that the Gorbachev-era 'new thinkers'
had decided that the conventional 'deep operations' posture in turn needed to be abandoned.
For a summary of the latter's arguments, see article entitled 'Rethinking War: The Soviets
and European Security', published in the Spring 1988 edition of the 'Brookings Review',
available on the 'Unz Review' site.
Also associated with Brookings at the time was the Duke University Sovietologist Jerry
Hough, who had read his way through the writings of academics in the institutes associated
with the Academy of Sciences on development economics, and talked extensively to many of
their authors.
In the 'Conclusion' to his 1986 study, 'The Struggle for the Third World: Soviet Debates
and American Options', Hough wrote:
'Or what is one to say about the argument – now very widely accepted – among
Soviet economists – that countries with "capitalist-oriented" economies in the third
world have a natural tendency to grow more rapidly than countries with a "socialist
orientation" because well-rounded development seems to be dependent on foreign investment
and integration into the world market? A quarter of a century ago, let alone in the Stalin
period, it was just as widely accepted that integration into the capitalist world economy
doomed a third world country to slow, deformed growth and that foreign investment exploited
a local economy.'
One thing one could say is that this recognition that fundamental premises of the
Marxist-Leninist view of the world had turned out wrong was simple an acknowledgement of
the ways that the world had changed. And that view of the world had defined the political
framework in which Soviet contingency planning for war had developed.
Central to this had been the premise of a 'natural' teleology of history towards
socialism, with the risk of war in the international system arising from the attempts of
the 'imperialist' powers to resist this.
So there were profound pressures, which really were not simply created by the Reagan
military build-up and SDI, for radical changes in the Soviet security posture. Questions
were obviously raised, however, as to whether these – together with radical domestic
reform – would defuse Western hostility.
Fascinating here is Document 11, a memo to Gorbachev from a key advisor, Georgy Arbatov,
the director of the 'Institute for U.S.A. and Canada' from the previous June. This sets the
plan for the 500,000 troop reduction in the context both of the wider conception of
liquidating the capability for large-scale offensive operations described MccGwire, and
also of the perceived importance of breaking the 'image of the enemy' in the West.
While both Gorbachev, and Arbatov, were widely perceived in the West as engaged in a
particularly dangerous 'active measures' campaign, it is striking how closely the thinking
set out in the memo echoes that the latter had articulated the previous December in a
letter to the 'New York Times', in response to a column by William Safire.
Headlined 'It Takes Two to Make a Cold War', it expresses key assumptions underlying the
'new thinking.' Two crucial paragraphs:
'If the Soviet Union should accept the proposed rules of the game and devotedly continue
the cold war, then, of course, sooner or later, the whole thing would end in a calamity.
But at least Mr. Safire's plan would work. The only problem I see here is that the Soviet
Union will not pick up the challenge and accept the proposed rules of the game. And then
Americans would find themselves in exactly the same position Mr. Safire and his ilk, as he
himself writes, are finding themselves in now: history would pass them by, and years from
now they would be "regarded as foot-draggers and sourpusses," because almost no one in the
world is willing to play the games of the American right. Least of all, the Soviet
Union.
'And here we have a "secret weapon" that will work almost regardless of the American
response e would deprive America of The Enemy. And how would you justify without it the
military expenditures that bleed the American economy white, a policy that draws America
into dangerous adventures overseas and drives wedges between the United States and its
allies, not to mention the loss of American influence on neutral countries? Wouldn't such a
policy in the absence of The Enemy put America in the position of an outcast in the
international community?'
There was however another question which was raised by the patent bankrupcy of
Marxism-Leninism, which bore very directly upon what Arbatov, in his memorandum to
Gorbachev.
If one accepted that Soviet-style economics had led to a dead end, and that integration
into the U.S. dominated global economic order was the road to successful development,
questions obviously arose about not simply about how far, and how rapidly, one should
attempt to dismantle not simply the command economy.
But they also arose about whether it was prudent to dismantle the authoritarian
political system with which it was associated, at the same time.
In a lecture given in 2010, entitled 'The Cold War: A View from Russia', the historian
Vladimir O. Pechatnov, himself a product of Arbatov's institute, would provide a vivid
picture of the disillusion felt by 'liberalising' intellectuals within the Soviet
apparatus, like himself.
However, he also made the – rather interesting – suggestion that, had logic
of central arguments by George F. Kennan, the figure generally, if in my own view somewhat
misleadingly, regarded as the principal architect of post-war American strategy, actually
pointed rather decisively away from the assumption that a rapid dismantling of the
authoritarian system was wise.
And Pechatnov pointed to the very ambivalent implications of the view of the latent
instability of Soviet society expressed in Kennan's famous July 1947 'X-article':
'So, if Communist Party is incapacitated, the Soviet Russia, I quote, "would almost
overnight turn from one of the mightiest into one of the weakest and miserable nations of
the world "). Had Gorbachev read Kennan and realized this causal connection (as Deng and
his colleagues most definitely had), he might have thought twice before abruptly
terminating the Communist monopoly on power.'
What is involved here is a rather fundamental fact – that in their more optimistic
assumptions, people like Arbatov and Gorbachev turned out to be simply wrong.
Crucially, rather than marginalising people like Pipes, and Safire, and Billingslea, an
effect of the retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to convince a very substantial part
of what had been the 'Peace Movement' coalition that their erstwhile opponents had been
vindicated.
However, the enthusiasm of people like Billingslea for a retry of the supposed
successful 'Reagan recipe' brings another irony.
As to SDI, it was well-known at the time that it could easily be countered, at
relatively low cost, with 'asymetric' measures.
This is well brought out in Garthoff's discussion in his 2001 Memoir 'A Journey through
the Cold War: A Memoir of Containment and Coexistence' (see p. 356.) For a more recent
discussion, in the light of declassified materials, which reaches the same conclusion, see
a piece in the 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' by Pavel Podvig from April 2013,
entitled 'Shooting down the Star Wars myth' at
And if one bothers to follow the way that arguments have been developing outside the
'bubble' in which most inhabitants of Washington D.C., and London exist, it is evident that
people in Moscow, and Beijing, have thought about the lessons of this history. Those who
think that they are going to be suckered into an arms race that the United States can win
are quite patently delusional.
From MoA comment
57: "Warmongering shit bags endlessly flatulent about their moral superiority while threatening to nuke nations on the other
side of the globe daily. ... the greatness of the US consists of how gullible its hyper-exploited populace has been to a long
series of Donald Trumps who use the resources of the land and people for competitive violence against other nations. the world
heaves a collective hallelujah that this bullshit is about to end. "
Notable quotes:
"... Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet. ..."
"... This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences. ..."
"... Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it ..."
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With
China's BRI
The battle for Australia's soul has begun.
Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called
Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the
planet.
This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of
the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if
sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless
consequences.
On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data
traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever
do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...
Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it.
Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.
Have they nothing better to do than peddle their Russophobia?
Wouldn't it be more useful to allocate $ 250,000 to save someone's lives, @StateDept ? Instead
of "Exposing Russian Health Disinformation"
➡️ https://t.co/Hv3CydUgBX
The concept of managerial class liberals (PMC - abbrevation which probably means "project management class" ??? ) as the
core of Clinton wing of the Democrtic Party is an interesting one.
Notable quotes:
"... At the height of the Russiagate hysteria, as charges were flying that the 'attack' was worse than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 rolled into one, the class that had filled military recruiting stations following these earlier events was notably quiet. The faction that believed the charges, managerial class liberals (PMC), still substantially believes them despite none of the evidence put forward to support them holding up under examination. ..."
"... The Iraq War and the Great Recession created political divisions that are unlikely to be resolved without a redistribution of political and economic power downward. ..."
"... By the time the Great Recession struck in 2007, the U.S. war against Iraq was widely understood to be a strategic and military blunder, murderous almost beyond comprehension, and based on lies from American officials. ..."
"... Prior to this -- in the early 1990s, the New Democrats had made a strategic decision to tie their lot to the 'new economy' of Wall Street. Recruiting suburban Republicans into the Democratic Party was old news by Bill Clinton's second term. The PMC was made the ideological core of the Party. This helps explain the substantial overlap between the 'liberal hawks' who would some years later support George W. Bush's war against Iraq and the Russiagate truthers who were tied through class interests to its orthodoxies. ..."
"... While Democrat versus Republican or left versus right are most often used to distinguish Russiagate proponents and believers from skeptics, it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press -- the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story. As it happens, the PMC and rich are the demographic that these news sources serve . Class connotes substantively different lived experience. The Russiagate true believers have benefitted from official connections and the skeptics and large majority of those disinterested in Russiagate haven't. ..."
"... As one who spent years using scientific methods to conduct empirical research, 1) it is as easy to lie with evidence as without it and 2) every source for the Russiagate charges that I followed tied back to the DNC, the CIA or its NGO affiliates like the Atlantic Council. These are political actors, not disinterested parties. The method of reporting is to state charges in the headline, and then to correctly state that official sources claim that the headline charges are true in the body of the article. This leaves the impression that evidence supports the headline charges with no actual evidence having been presented. Deference to authority isn't evidence. ..."
"... As I laid out in 2018 here , the role of the CIA in oil and gas geopolitics ties the motives for demonizing Russia to U.S. machinations in Ukraine and to weapons production and distribution as the business of U.S. based corporations. Further back, while the George W. Bush administration's war against Iraq was a strategic, military, moral and humanitarian disaster, oligarchs and corporate executives made personal fortunes from it. This 'model' of the modern state acting on behalf of business interests ties all the way back to the alleged pre-capitalism of mercantilism. ..."
"... The PMC is the service class of this state-capitalism, with corporate lawyers, tech workers, Wall Street traders and middle managers whose livelihoods and identities are tied to their class position through these jobs. ..."
"... This difference in lived experience explains why the PMC saw the Wall Street bailouts as both necessary and effective, while much of the rest of the country didn't. Wall Street is the functional core of the PMC economy through the process of financialization. ..."
"... The tendency to vote rises with family income. The well to do elected Donald Trump, as they do every president. As the machinations to make Joe Biden the Democrat's candidate in 2020 suggest, the poor can vote for their choice to represent the interests of the rich, but not their own ..."
"... Russiagate was and is defense of a class realm, of the power of the rich and the PMC to do as they please without the political chatter of the 'little people' or the populist pretensions of Donald Trump. ..."
"... While it seems evident now that Trump was never more than a minor inconvenience in the CIA's plans for murder, mayhem, and world domination, this wasn't evident at the outset of his tenure in the White House. John Brennan and James Clapper have demonstrated over long careers that the well-behaved fascism of corporate political control, for profit militarism, targeted and occasionally brutal repression of the 'little people' and democracy in name only, are fine with them. ..."
"... That none of the Russiagate charges turned out to have merit has had no determinable political impact to date. Its central protagonists knew they were telling lies (links above) all along. Not considered by the Russiagate acolytes is that those telling lies weren't lying to the marginally literate 'fascists' who should in elite theory have been the easiest to fool. Those people don't spend their days reading the New York Times and listening to NPR. They were lying to the educated elite. And lest this elite imagine that it was in on the lies -- they quite conspicuously believed every word of them. ..."
A thought experiment with a purpose is to ask: if a group of former Directors of the CIA, NSA and FBI put forward a story about
a malevolent foreign power acting against the U.S. without providing evidence that their story is true, who would believe them? While
this wasn't precisely the setup for Russiagate, all of the former Directors came forward as former Directors of intelligence agencies,
not as private citizens. And the information they presented was compiled as opposition research for a political campaign. It might
have (did) provided a basis for further inquiry, but it wasn't evidence as it was presented.
Oddly, ironically even, the part of the population that in earlier history would have taken former government officials at their
word and been ready to fight, kill, or die to right this alleged wrong, was
circumspect
in the case of Russiagate. At the height of the Russiagate hysteria, as charges were flying that the 'attack' was worse than Pearl
Harbor and 9/11 rolled into one, the class that had filled military recruiting stations following these earlier events was notably
quiet. The faction that believed the charges, managerial class liberals (PMC), still substantially believes them despite none of
the evidence put forward to support them holding up under examination.
This seeming role reversal of managerial class liberals being whipped into a nationalistic fervor while the rest of the country
looked away was a long time coming. Trump loathing explains why liberals want Donald Trump gone from office, but not the nationalistic
fervor or the studied disinterest of the rest of the country in the 'attack' by a foreign power. The receptivity, or lack thereof,
of these political factions (classes) to official proclamations is the result of lived history. The Iraq War and the Great Recession
created political divisions that are unlikely to be resolved without a redistribution of political and economic power downward.
Graph: As was much reported at the time, the Great Recession was orders of magnitude more economically destructive than prior
post-WWII recessions. Both the severity and persistence of unemployment were far outside of the post-War experience. At the time
of the 2016 election, long-term unemployment had still not returned to pre-recession levels. Its levels and impact were differentiated
by class, with employment amongst the PMC, composed largely of liberal Democrats, quickly returning to pre-recession levels. while
working class employment permanently disappeared or was turned into gig jobs. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Up through the U.S. war against Iraq, working class men joined the military and fought American wars while the rich and professional
classes got educational deferments or a doctor's note claiming one or another exemption-worthy malady to do the hard work of 'changing
the system from within.' Even with the class-blind farce of a 'volunteer' military, there came a time around 2006 when the intersection
of official lies and body bags accumulated to the point where a righteous rebellion against official power took hold amongst the
'lesser' classes. Barack Obama won election in 2008 based in part on his carefully worded rejection of wars of choice.
By the time the Great Recession struck in 2007, the U.S. war against Iraq was widely understood to be a strategic and military
blunder, murderous almost beyond comprehension, and based on lies from American officials. And it was far from being resolved. For
structural reasons including three-plus decades of planned deindustrialization, the systematic weakening of labor's power and the
social safety net, and the partitioning of the economy into financialized and not financialized sectors, the bailouts of Wall Street
produced different outcomes by class, with the PMC seeing its fortunes quickly restored while the working class was left to languish.
Prior to this -- in the early 1990s, the New Democrats had made a strategic decision to tie their lot to the 'new economy' of
Wall Street. Recruiting suburban Republicans into the Democratic Party was old news by Bill Clinton's second term. The PMC was made
the ideological core of the Party. This helps explain the substantial overlap between the 'liberal hawks' who would some years later
support George W. Bush's war against Iraq and the Russiagate truthers who were tied through class interests to its orthodoxies.
To tie this together, the Americans who died, were permanently disabled or who lost family members and friends in the U.S. war
against Iraq, also found themselves on the wrong side of the class war that began in the 1980s with deindustrialization. By the time
of the Great Recession, working class labor was forced to contend with long-term unemployment (graph above) or with the perpetual
insecurity of the gig economy. Contrariwise, those whose class position meant that they had 'better things to do' than to volunteer
to serve in Iraq had their fortunes quickly restored in the Great Recession through government bailouts.
While Democrat versus Republican or left versus right are most often used to distinguish Russiagate proponents and believers from
skeptics, it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press -- the New York Times, Washington Post
and NPR, that believed and supported the story. As it happens, the PMC and rich are the demographic that
these news
sources serve . Class connotes substantively different lived experience. The Russiagate true believers have benefitted from official
connections and the skeptics and large majority of those disinterested in Russiagate haven't.
Referred to, but not yet addressed, is the complete failure of the Russiagate evidence to match the DNC / establishment press
/ national security state storylines. From
collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump to
emails leaked to, and then published by, Wikileaks to the Russian
troll farm and its ties to the GRU (Russian intelligence), none of these theories have been supported by the evidence offered.
And most of the political actors who spent years promoting them knew
they weren't true before Donald Trump even took office.
As one who spent years using scientific methods to conduct empirical research, 1) it is as easy to lie with evidence as without
it and 2) every source for the Russiagate charges that I followed tied back to the DNC, the CIA or its NGO affiliates like the Atlantic
Council. These are political actors, not disinterested parties. The method of reporting is to state charges in the headline, and
then to correctly state that official sources claim that the headline charges are true in the body of the article. This leaves the
impression that evidence supports the headline charges with no actual evidence having been presented. Deference to authority isn't
evidence.
This kind of journalism isn't just poor reporting. It is either naively trusting of official sources or it is intended to deceive.
Given how little follow-up has been done on the serial failures of the evidence, the most probable answer is that it is straight-up
propaganda. But the conception of propaganda that the facts support requires something like a unified state interest, as well as
an explanation of how and why the establishment press serves as a permanent conduit for official disinformation. Given that an elected
President was the target of the Russiagate campaign, the unified state interest theory doesn't work.
More broadly, the neoliberal project seems to have been modeled on the Marxist / Leninist conception of the state as existing
to promote the interests of prominent capitalists. Beginning around the time of Bill Clinton's election to the presidency, the privatization
of government services led to the creation of a
public-private amalgam
composed of PMC workers who perform state functions like domestic spying for the CIA and the NSA. Russiagate certainly appears from
its motives, sources, 'facts' and constituency, to have been carried out by functionaries in this public-private amalgam who saw
it as their right to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.
As I laid out in 2018 here , the
role of the CIA in oil and gas geopolitics ties the motives for demonizing Russia to U.S. machinations in Ukraine and to weapons
production and distribution as the business of U.S. based corporations. Further back, while the George W. Bush administration's war
against Iraq was a strategic, military, moral and humanitarian disaster, oligarchs and corporate executives
made personal fortunes from it. This 'model'
of the modern state acting on behalf of business interests ties all the way back to the alleged
pre-capitalism of
mercantilism.
The PMC is the service class of this state-capitalism, with corporate lawyers, tech workers, Wall Street traders and middle managers
whose livelihoods and identities are tied to their class position through these jobs. Through the social partitions of class, they
are free to have self-flattering politics that have no bearing on how their lives are lived. Identity politics like 'ending racism'
have no bearing on who their co-workers are, who their neighbors are or who their children attend school with. Class determines these.
This largely explains why beliefs, rather than acts, are the currency of this politics. Class is invisible for those who never encounter,
or more precisely see, the economic and social consequences of capitalism on different classes.
This difference in lived experience explains why the PMC saw the Wall Street bailouts as both necessary and effective, while much
of the rest of the country didn't. Wall Street is the functional core of the PMC economy through the process of financialization.
That the vast majority of the country works and lives far from this functional core makes it the center of the PMC economy, not of
the broader economy. And the bailouts 'worked' in the sense that they quickly restored PMC jobs and bonuses. That they topped off
four decades of declining fortunes for working class workers (graph above) was hidden behind economic aggregates.
The endless reading of the political tea leaves over Donald Trump's electoral victory, over whether it was a dispossessed working
class or Republican plutocrats that brought him to victory, is the analytical equivalent of the debate over the economic impact of
the bailouts. Rich people vote, poor people don't (graph below). Electoral politics is a struggle that takes place amongst the rich
and the PMC. The visceral disdain the PMC has shown for the 'little people' throughout Russiagate is the product of four decades
of class warfare launched from above, not the start of it.
Graph: The tendency to vote rises with family income. The well to do elected Donald Trump, as they do every president. As the
machinations to make Joe Biden the Democrat's candidate in 2020 suggest, the poor can vote for their choice to represent the interests
of the rich, but not their own. This gives credence to Thomas Ferguson's 'investment theory' of politics. The rich vote to protect
their investment in political outcomes. Source: econofact.org.
Russiagate was and is defense of a class realm, of the power of the rich and the PMC to do as they please without the political
chatter of the 'little people' or the populist pretensions of Donald Trump.
While it seems evident now that Trump was never more
than a minor inconvenience in the CIA's plans for murder, mayhem, and world domination, this wasn't evident at the outset of his
tenure in the White House. John Brennan and James Clapper have demonstrated over long careers that the well-behaved fascism of corporate
political control, for profit militarism, targeted and occasionally brutal repression of the 'little people' and democracy in name
only, are fine with them.
What they and the PMC do object to is any notion of democracy that doesn't leave them in control of everything that it allegedly
exists to determine. If elected leaders believe they have a legitimate reason for taking military action, why do they resort to using
political and psychological coercion (like Russiagate) rather than taking their case to the people? If other, much poorer, countries
can run free and fair elections, why can't the U.S.? And why are corporate representatives allowed to craft public policies when
their interests diverge from the public's?
That none of the Russiagate charges turned out to have merit has had no determinable political impact to date. Its central protagonists
knew they were telling lies (links above) all along. Not considered by the Russiagate acolytes is that those telling lies weren't
lying to the marginally literate 'fascists' who should in elite theory have been the easiest to fool. Those people don't spend their
days reading the New York Times and listening to NPR. They were lying to the educated elite. And lest this elite imagine that it
was in on the lies -- they quite conspicuously believed every word of them.
That Brennan, Clapper and company are everything that liberals claim to hate about Donald Trump -- tacky talk show hosts who spout
whatever bullshit comes to mind if they think it will close the deal, suggests that Trump himself would be a #Resistance hero if
he had run as a Democrat. Otherwise, bright lights on the left can't seem to get past the notion that the establishment press
always reports bullshit when doing so is politically convenient. Reporting what power says rather than what it does is to be
a mouthpiece for power. That is what the establishment press does, and that is why it is considered the 'legitimate' source.
As befits this moment in history, there are no generally applicable lessons to be drawn from Russiagate. Its central protagonists
have already moved on to the 'restoring integrity to the White House' grift. By making the election a choice between getting ass
cancer or shingles, Biden or Trump -- you decide which is which, the nation has reached a zenith of sorts.
This type of moment produced
punk rock in an earlier age. Again, as befits the age, we now have the moment without the punk rock. As the existential philosophers
had it, despair is our friend. At least that's what Putin tells me.
"... Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service. Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine. ..."
"... Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly, is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants' without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001 , and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences, obviously. ..."
"... The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least 4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system, because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think? ..."
"... I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability, and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which it was assigned has locked on to the target. ..."
"... The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot. ..."
"... There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army continued to shell the site for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down. ..."
"... Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because both the CVR and the FDR are in the tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC. ..."
"... According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to 'secure the crash site', which was forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating. ..."
"... The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch and the JIT. ..."
>Uncle Volodya says, "We become slaves the moment we hand the keys to the definition of reality entirely over to someone else,
whether it is a business, an economic theory, a political party, the White House, Newsworld or CNN."
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.
In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans
until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan."
– Adolf Hitler
We're going to do something just a bit different today; the event I want to talk about is current – in the future, actually –
but the reference which is the subject of the discussion is almost a year old. and the event it discusses is coming up to its sixth
anniversary. The past event was the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17 over Ukraine, the future event is the trial in
absentia of persons accused by the west of having perpetrated that disaster, and the reference is this piece, by Mark Galeotti,
for the Moscow Times:
"Russia's Roadmap
Out of the MH17 Crisis" .
You all know Mr. Galeotti, I'm sure. Here's his bio, for Amazon:
"Professor Mark Galeotti is a senior researcher at UMV, the Institute of International Relations Prague, and coordinator of
its Centre for European Security. Formerly, he was Professor of Global Affairs at New York University and head of History at Keele
University. Educated at Cambridge University and the LSE, he is a specialist in modern Russian politics and security and transnational
organized crime. And he writes other things for fun, too "
Yes, yes, he certainly does, as you will see. But this bio is extremely modest, albeit he most likely wrote it himself. Mr. Galeotti
also authored an excellent blog, In Moscow's Shadows , which was once a go-to reference for crime and legal issues in Russia,
a subject in which he seems very well-informed. The blog is still active, although he seems mostly to use it now to advertise podcasts
and sell books. That's understandable – it's evident from the blur of titles appended to his name that he's a very busy man. Always
has been, really; either as a student or an educator. He also speaks with confidence on the details of military affairs and equipment
despite never having been in the military or studied engineering; his education has pretty much all been in history, law or political
science.
I know what you will say – many of the greatest reference works on pivotal battles, overall military campaigns and affairs were
written by those who had no personal military experience themselves. Mr. Galeotti studied under Dominic Lieven, whose
"Russia Against Napoleon"
was perhaps the greatest work of military history, rich with detail and insight, that I have ever read. It won him the Wolfson
prize for History for 2010, a well-deserved honour. Yet so far as I could make out, Mr. Lieven never served a day in uniform, and
if you handed him an AK-47 and said "Here; field-strip this", your likely response would be a blank look. He most certainly was not
a witness to the subject military campaign. No; his epic work on Napoleon's invasion of Russia was informed by research, reading
the accounts of others who were there at the time, poring over reams of old documents and matching references to get the best picture
we have been afforded to date of Napoleon's ignominious defeat through a combination of imperial overreach, a poor grasp of logistics
and, most of all, resistance by an adversary who refused to be drawn into playing to Napoleon's strength – the decisive, crushing
battle in which the enemy could not retreat, and in which Napoleon would commit all the reserves and crush his enemy to dust.
So it is perfectly possible for an inquisitive mind with no military experience to put together an excellent reference on military
happenings which already took place, even if the owner of that mind was not present for the actual event. Given human nature and
the capabilities afforded by modern military equipment, it is even possible to forecast future military events with a fair degree
of accuracy, going merely by political ambitions and enabling factors, without any personal military experience. After all, the decision-makers
who give the orders that send their military forces into battle are often not military men themselves.
Returning for a moment to Mr. Galeotti, it is quite believable that an author with no military background could compose such works
as "Armies of the Russian-Ukrainian War" , although there is no serious evidence that Russia is a part of such a conflict
in any real military strength. You could write such a book entirely from media references and documentation, which in this case would
come almost entirely from the side which claims it is under constant attack by the other – Ukraine. Likewise "Kulikovo 1380;
the Battle that Made Russia" . None of us were around in 1380, so we all have to go by historical references, and whoever collects
them all into a book first is likely to be regarded as an expert.
No, it's more when we get into how stuff works that I have an issue with it. Like " Spetsnaz: Russia's Special Forces
". Or " The Modern Russian Army ". I'm kind of skeptical about how someone could claim to know the actual internal workings
of either organization simply from reading about them in popular references, considering that more than half the material on Russia
written in English in western references is rubbish heavily influenced by politics and policy. We would not have to look very far
to find examples in which ridiculous overconfidence by one side that it had the other side's number resulted in a horrible surprise.
In fact, we would not have to look very far to find an example of this particular author confidently averring to know something inside-out,
only to find that version
of reality could not be sustained . And I would no more turn to a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Institute of International
Relations Prague for expert analysis of the "Combat Vehicles of Russia's Special Forces" than I would ask a house painter
to cut my hair. Unless I see some recollections of a college-age Galeotti tinkering with drivetrains and differentials until the
sun went down from a pure love of mechanics, I am going to go ahead and assume that he knows what the vast majority of us knows about
military vehicles – he could pick one out of a lineup which included a melon, a goat and an Armored Personnel Carrier, and if it
had a flat tire he could probably fix it given time and the essential equipment.
Just before we move on, the future event: the MH-17 'trial' has been
postponed
until June 8th , to give defense attorneys more time to prepare after the amazingly fortuitous capture of a 'key witness' in
Eastern Ukraine. I'm not going to elaborate here on what a kicking-the-can-down-the-road crock this is; we'll pick that up later.
The whole MH-17 'investigation' has been such a ridiculous exercise in funneling the pursuit to a single inescapable conclusion –
that Russia shot it down – irrespective of how many points have to be bent to fit the curve that no matter how it comes out, it will
stand as perhaps the greatest example of absurd western self-justification ever recorded.
There are a couple of ways of solving a mystery crime. One is to collect evidence, and follow where it takes you. Another is to
decide who you want to have been responsible, and then construct a sequence of events in which they might have done it. To do that,
especially in this case, we will have to throw out a few assumptions, such as all that stuff about means, motive and opportunity.
In the absence of a believable scenario, that is. Let's look at what we have, and what we need, and see how we get from there to
here.
First, we need for Ukraine not to have been responsible. That's going to be awkward, because it looks as if the aircraft was shot
down by a missile, but the missile had to have come from inside Ukraine, because the aircraft was too far from the nearest point
in Russia at the moment it was stricken for the missile to have come from there. But we need Russia to have been responsible, and
not Ukraine. Therefore we need a sequence of events in which a Russian missile launcher capable of shooting down an airliner at cruising
altitude was inside Ukraine, in a position from which it could have taken the shot.
You know what? We are going to have to look at means, motive and opportunity, just for a second. My purpose in doing
so is to illustrate just how improbable the western narrative is, starting from square one. The coup in Ukraine – and anyone who
believes it was a 'grass-roots revolution' might as well stop reading right here, because we are going to just get further apart
in our impressions of events – followed by the triumphant promise from the revolutionaries to repeal Yanukovych's language laws and
make Ukrainian the law of the land touched off the return of Crimea to its ancestral home in the Russian Federation. Crimea was about
65% ethnic Russian by population at the time, and only about 15% Ukrainian, and Crimea had made several attempts to break free of
Ukraine before that yet for some reason the west refused steadfastly to accept the results of a referendum which voted in favour
of Crimea becoming a part of the Russian Federation, as if it were more believable that a huge ethnic-Russian majority preferred
to learn Ukrainian and be governed by Kiev.
Be that as it may, Washington reacted very angrily; much more so than Europe, considering the distance between the United States
and Ukraine versus its proximity to Europe. Perhaps that is owed simply to Washington's assumption that every corner of the world
looks to it for leadership, and that it must have a position ready on any given situation, regardless how distant. So Washington
insisted there must be sanctions against Russia, for stealing Crimea from its rightful owner, Ukraine. We're not really going to
get into struggles for freedom and the right to self-determination right now, except to state that the USA considers nothing more
important in some cases, while in others it is completely irrelevant. Washington demanded sanctions but
much of Europe was reluctant .
"It is notoriously difficult to secure EU agreement on sanctions anywhere because they require unanimity from the 28 member
states. There were wide differences over the numbers of Russians and Crimeans to be punished, with countries such as Greece, Cyprus,
Bulgaria and Spain reluctant to penalise Moscow for fear of closing down channels of dialogue. The 21 named were on an original list
that ran to about 120 people Expanding the numbers on the sanctions list is almost certain to be discussed at the EU summit on Thursday
and Friday. Some EU states are torn about taking punitive measures against Russia for fear of undoing years of patient attempts to
establish closer ties with Moscow as well as increase trade. The EU has already suspended talks with Russia on an economic pact and
a visa agreement The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said any measure must leave "ways and possibilities open to
prevent a further escalation that could lead to the division of Europe" .
The original list of those to be sanctioned was 120 people. The haggling reduced that to 21. Only 7 of those were Russians. Putin
was not included. That was pretty plainly not the United Front That Speaks With One Voice that Washington had envisioned, and the
notion that Europe would buy into sanctions that might really do some damage to Russia, albeit there would be economic costs to Europe
as well, was a dim prospect.
Gosh – you know what we need? An atrocity which can be quickly tied to Russia, and which will so appall the EU member states that
resistance to far-reaching sanctions will collapse. That's called 'motive'. It's just not a motive for Russia. Having just gone far
out on a limb and taken back Crimea, to the obvious and vocal fury of the United States, it is a bit of a stretch that Russia was
looking for what else it could do that would stir up the world against it.
Means, now. That presents its own dilemma. Because Russia could have shot down an airliner from its own territory. Just not with
the weapon chosen. The S-400 could have done it; it has the range, easily. But if you were setting up a scenario in which something
happened that you wanted to blame on Russia, but they didn't really do it, you must have the weapon to do it yourself, or access
to it. By any reasonable construct, Ukraine must be a suspect as well – there was a hot war going on in Ukraine, Ukraine controlled
both the airspace and the aircraft that was lost, and the aircraft was lost over Ukrainian territory. But Ukraine doesn't have the
S-400. You could use a variety of western systems, but it would quickly be established that the plane was shot down with a weapon
that Russia does not have. In order for the narrative to be believable, Russia must have the weapon – but if it wasn't Russia, then
whoever did it must have the weapon, too.
Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service.
Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine.
Which brings us back to Mr. Galeotti, an expert in Russian combat systems; enough of an expert to write books on them, anyway.
And he plainly believes it was an SA-11 missile fired from a single Buk TELAR (Transporter/Erector/Launcher and Radar) which brought
down the Boeing; he says that's what the evidence demonstrates, although by this time (2019) most of the world has backed away from
saying Putin showed up with no shirt on to close the firing switch personally (cue the instant British-press screaming headlines
before the dust had even settled, "PUTIN'S MISSILE!!!" "PUTIN KILLED MY SON!!!"). Now the story is that the disgraceful deed was
done by 'Ukrainian anti-government militants', using a weapon supplied by Russia.
"In this context, a full reversal of policy seems near-enough impossible. The evidence suggests that while the fateful missile
was fired by Ukrainian anti-government militants, it was supplied by the Russian 53rd Air Defense Brigade under orders from Moscow
and in a process managed by Russian military intelligence.
To admit this would not only be to acknowledge a share in the unlawful killing of 298 innocents, but also an unpicking of
the whole Kremlin narrative over the Donbass. It would mean admitting to having been an active participant in this bloody compound
of civil war and foreign intervention, to having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences, and to having lied
to the world and the Russian people for half a decade."
We don't really have the scope in this piece to broaden the discussion to Russia's probable actual involvement. Suffice it to
say that despite non-stop allegations by Poroshenko throughout his presidency of entire battalions of active-service Russian Army
soldiers inside Ukraine, zero evidence has ever been provided of any such presence, although there have been
some clumsy attempts to fabricate
it . To argue that the Russian Army has been trying to overrun Ukraine for six years now, but has been unable to do so because
of the combat prowess of the Ukrainian Army is to imply a belief in leprechauns. This is only my own inexpert opinion, but it seems
likely to me the complete extent of Russia's involvement, militarily, is the minimum which prevents Eastern Ukraine from being overrun
by the Ukrainian military, and including the rebel areas' own far-from-inconsequential military forces. I'm always ready to entertain
competing theories, though; be sure to bring your evidence. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits using the country's military
forces against its own citizens. The logic of 'Have cake, and eat it" cannot apply here – either the Ukrainian state is in direct
and obvious violation of its own constitution or the people of the breakaway regions are not Ukrainian citizens.
Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that
sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly,
is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants'
without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army
shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001
, and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises
on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station
claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the
Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences,
obviously.
The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least
4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature
as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a
minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an
air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without
the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign
targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some
reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system,
because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think?
What about the acquisition radar? Because acquiring targets is all about scanning capability and situational awareness. We're
going to assume for a moment that you don't use an air defense system exclusively to hunt for airliners, but that you want to defend
yourself against ground-attack aircraft like the Sukhoi SU-25. Because, when you think about it, who is more likely to be trying
to kill you ? A Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777, or an SU-25? The latter is not quite as fast as an airliner at its cruising
height of 30,000 ft+, but it is very agile and will be nearly down in the treetops if it is attacking you. You need to be able to
search all around, all the time.
That's where the acquisition radar comes in. A centimetric waveband search radar, the
Snow Drift (called the 9S18M1 by
its designer) has 360-degree coverage and from 0 to 40 degrees of height in a 6-second sweep in anti-aircraft mode, with a 160 km
detection range, obviously dependent on target altitude. An airliner, being a large target not attempting to evade detection, and
at a high altitude, would quite possibly be detected at the maximum range of which the system is capable. But then the operators
would certainly know it was an airliner. And the narrative says whoever shot it down probably did so by accident.
Maybe if it was his first day on the job. Let's talk for a minute about air-defense deconfliction. It would be nice if your Command
parked you somewhere that there was nothing around you but enemies. Well, not as nice as parking you across the street from a pulled-pork
barbecue joint with strippers and cold beer, but from a defense standpoint, it'd be nice to know that anything you detected, you
could shoot. Know something? It's never like that. Your own aircraft are flying around as if they didn't even know you are dangerous,
and as everyone now knows, civilian airliners continue their transport enterprises irrespective of war except in rare instances in
which high-flying aircraft have been shot down by long-range missiles. That rarely happens. Why? Because an aircraft flying a steady
course, at 30,000 ft+ and not descending, is no threat to you on the ground. From that altitude it can't even see you in the ground
clutter, and it'd be quite a bombardier that could hit a target the size of a two-car garage with a bomb dropped from 30,000 ft while
flying at 400 knots.
And unless you are an idiot, you know it is an airliner. When you are deployed into the field in an air-defense role, you know
where the commercial airlanes are that are going to be active. You know what a commercial-aviation profile looks like – aircraft
at 30,000 ft+ altitude, flying at ≥400 knots on a steady course, squawking Mode 3 and Charlie = airliner. Might as well take a moment
here to talk about
IFF ; Identification
Friend or Foe. This is a coded pulse signal transmitted by all commercial aircraft whenever they are in flight unless their equipment
is non-functional, and you are not allowed to take off with it in that state. Mode C provides the aircraft's altitude, taken automatically
from its barometric altimeter. All modern air search radars have IFF capability, and a dashed line just below the raw video of the
air track can be interrogated with a light-pen to provide the readout. You already know how high the plane is if you have a solid
radar track, but Mode C provides a confirmation.
Military aircraft have IFF transponders, too; in fact, most of the modes are reserved for military use. But military aircraft
often turn off their IFF equipment, because it provides a giveaway who and where they are. In Ukraine, which uses mostly Soviet military
aircraft, both sides are capable of reading each other's IFF, so all the more reason not to transmit. Foreign nations typically cannot
read each other's IFF except for the modes which are for both military and civilian use, other than those nations who are allies.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the Snow Drift acquisition radar has IFF, and if it detected an airliner-like target at
160 km., the operator would have that much more time to interrogate it and determine it was an airliner. Just to reiterate, the western
narrative holds that the destruction of the airliner was a mistake.
I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it
provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability,
and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is
to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing
of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which
it was assigned has locked on to the target.
That autonomous capability is probably what made it attractive to those building the scenario; consider. A complete Buk system
of 6, maybe 7 vehicles could hardly get all the way inside Ukraine to the firing position without being noticed and perhaps recorded.
But perhaps a single TELAR could do it. The aircraft could be shot down by an SA-11 missile and blamed on Russia – Ukraine has access
to plenty of SA-11's. But it is a weapon in the Russian active-service inventory. Further, Galeotti's commitment to the allegation
that the single TELAR was provided by Russia's 53rd Air Defense Brigade tells us he supports the crackpot narrative offered by Bellingcat,
the loopy citizen-journalist website headed by failed financial clerk Eliot Higgins. Bellingcat claims the Buk TELAR was trucked
into Ukraine on the back of a flatbed, took the shot that slew MH-17, and was immediately withdrawn back to Russia.
Ummm .how was that an accident? The Russians gave the Ukrainian militants a single launcher with no crane or reload missiles,
so it was limited to a maximum of four shots. Its ability to defend itself from ground attack was almost nil, since the design purpose
of mounting a Fire Dome radar
on each TELAR is not to make the launcher units autonomous; it is to permit concurrent engagements by several launchers, all
coordinated by the acquisition radar and command post. Without a radar of its own on the launcher, the firing unit would have to
wait until each engagement was completed before it could switch to a new target, but with a fire-control guidance radar on each TELAR,
multiple targets can be assigned to multiple launchers, while the search radar limits itself to acquisition and target assignment.
The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search
function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential
air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system
which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching
for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot.
A single TELAR with no reloads and no acquisition radar would have to be looking directly at the target when it was activated
in order to even see it; it takes 15 seconds for the launcher to swing into line and elevation even when that information is transmitted
to it from the acquisition radar. It takes 4 seconds for a scan to be completed when there is a whole two-thirds of a circle that
it is not even looking at, and you have to manually force it to search above 7 degrees because it is not designed to shoot down airliners.
All this time, the target is crossing the acquisition scope at 400 knots+. Fire Dome has integrated IFF, so if it did by some miracle
pick up an airliner in its search, the operator would know from transmitted IFF that he was looking at an airliner. A single TELAR
with no reload capability sent on an air-defense mission would have its ass ripped in half by ground-attack aircraft that it never
saw – if the autonomous capability is so good, why don't the Ukrainians use them as a single unit? Think of how much air-defense
coverage they could provide! Do you see the Ukrainian air-defense units employing the Buk that way? Never. Not once. Four TELARS,
acquisition radar vehicle, command vehicle, just the way the system was designed to operate.
Just because it has a limited capability to function in a given capacity should not suggest you would employ it that way. You
can use a hockey stick to turn off the bedroom light, and you won't even have to get out of bed. Would you do that? I hope not.
A one-third effective capacity in the air defense role together with the covert delivery and immediate withdrawal suggests that
the Russians provided the 'militants' with a single TELAR for the express purpose of shooting down a defenseless airliner. Except
nobody is saying that. It was a mistake. Well, except for Head of the Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who claimed
"Terrorists and militants have planned a cynical terrorist attack on a civilian aircraft Aeroflot AFL-2074 Moscow-Larnaka that was
flying at that time above the territory of Ukraine." He further claimed that this was motivated by a desire to 'justify an invasion'.
I'm pretty sure if any western authority could prove anything even close to that, we would not have had to wait 6 years for a trial.
Which brings us to the covert delivery and extraction. As part of his personal investigation, Max van der Werff drove the route
Bellingcat claimed was the extraction route by which the single TELAR, on its flatbed, was returned to Russia. He verified that there
is a highway overpass on the route which is too low for a load that tall to pass underneath. When he pointed this out to Higgins,
he was told there is a bypass spur which goes around it, which would allow the flatbed to regain the road beyond without having gone
through the overpass. Max drew his attention to the concrete barriers which blocked that road at the top of the hill, and which locals
claimed had been in place long before the destruction of MH-17. And that was the end of that conversation. I cannot say enough about
the quality of Max's work and his diligent, patient dissection
of the evidence . His diagrams of the entry and egress routes as provided by Bellingcat illustrate how little sense they make.
It was imperative the guilty Russians get the fuck out of Dodge with the greatest possible dispatch so they drove 100 kilometers
out of their way? Don't even terrorist murderers have GPS now?
Similarly, the simpleminded flailing of the Ukrainian investigators suggests they do not even have much of a grasp of how Surface-To-Air
missiles work. In excited posts like this one , the
BBC discloses that an exhaust vent from the tail section of a 'Buk missile' (the missile is actually the SA-11, while Buk is the
entire system) was found in the wreckage of the crashed plane, while
this one
even shows terminally-stunned head prosecutor Fred Westerbeke standing next to what is allegedly part of the rocket body of an
SA-11, including legible inventory markings, also 'found at the crash scene'.
Do tell.
Let me review for you how an SA-11 missile shoots down an aircraft. Does it pierce it like a harpoon, blow up in a thunderous
explosion, and ride the doomed aircraft down to the crash site? It certainly does not. The missile blasts out of the launcher and
flies to the target via semiactive homing, which means it has an onboard seeker that updates the missile trajectory, while the radar
on the launcher also communicates with it and the missile and the target are brought together in intercept. When the proximity fuse
of the missile – this is the important part – senses that the missile's warhead is close to the target, the internal explosive detonates,
and a shower of prefragmented shrapnel pierces the area of the plane near where the missile detonated, usually the front, because
the missile is constantly adjusting to make sure it stays with the target until intercept.
MH-17 traveled on, mostly intact, for miles before it crashed into the ground; the crash site was some 13 miles from where the
plane was hit. The missile self-destructed miles away from the crash site, and the only parts of it which accompanied the plane to
its impact point were the shrapnel bits of the exploded warhead. The body of the missile, together with the exhaust vent, fell back
to the ground somewhere quite close to where the plane was hit, not where it fell. Once the missile's fuel is exhausted, either because
it ran out or because it was consumed in the explosion triggered by the proximity fuse, the missile parts do not fly around in formation,
seeking out the wreckage and coming gently to rest in it where they can later be found by investigators. I don't know how many times
I have to say this, because this is certainly not the first, but there would not be any missile parts in the wreckage of MH-17
because the missile would have blown up in front of the plane without ever touching it. The missile does not hit the plane.
The pieces of the warhead do. But reality has to take a back seat to making out an airtight case.
There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army
continued to shell the site
for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite
a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down.
Several witnesses claimed to have seen an SU-25 near the plane before it exploded. They quite possibly did – the Ukrainian Air
Force was observed to be using civilian airliners as cover to allow them to get close to Eastern-Ukrainian villages which might be
protected by hand-held launchers known as MANPADS (for Man-Portable Air Defense System), reasoning the defenders would not shoot
if they were afraid they might hit a civil aircraft. Once they were close enough to the village or other target to make an attack
run, they would then return to the vicinity of the airliner for protection while withdrawing; the rebel side complained about this
illegal and immoral practice a month before the destruction of MH-17. But there is no evidence I am aware of linking the destruction
of MH-17 to an attack by aircraft.
It may no longer be possible to look at the shooting-down of the Malaysian Boeing objectively; the event has become a partisan
rush to judgment which was rendered immediately, after which an investigation began which plainly had as its goal proving the accusations
already made. Means and motive clearly favour the accusers rather than the accused, and opportunity is mostly irrelevant as a consideration.
Ukraine obviously had to be a suspect – the destruction of the aircraft occurred over Ukraine while Ukraine was in control of it
and the airspace in which it traveled. Yet Ukraine was allowed to lead the investigation, and to gather and safeguard evidence, while
the owner of the aircraft – Malaysia – was excluded until the investigation had been in progress for four months. Russia was not
allowed any part in it save to yield whatever evidence the investigators demanded, while all its theories were widely mocked. Demonstrations
set up by Almaz-Antey, the designers and builders of the SA-11, were unattended by any investigating nation – small wonder they do
not have Clue One how the missile works, and believe they are going to find big chunks of it in the wreckage, perhaps with Putin's
passport stuck to one of them. If any of these conditions prevailed in an investigation which favoured Russia, NATO would scream
as if it were being run over with spiked wheels – if the Boeing had been shot down over Russia, who thinks Russia would have been
heading the investigation, and custodian of the evidence?
Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report
implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR).
Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely
is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that
happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing
does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because
both the CVR and the FDR are in the
tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone
and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded
was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC.
According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to
'secure the crash site', which was
forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given
the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international
investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western
powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating.
The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a
Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which
concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch
and the JIT.
The conduct of the investigation has been all the way across town from transparent, and in fact seems to represent a clique of
cronies getting their heads together to attempt nailing down a consistent narrative, which is in the judgment of forensic professionals
based upon clumsy fabrications. The investigators plainly have no understanding of how the weapons systems involved perform, or they
would not claim confidently to have discovered pieces of the very missile that destroyed the plane in the wreckage of it. But rather
than take an objective look at how this flailing is perceived, they continue to rely on momentum and the appearance of getting things
done while being scrupulously impartial, all the while that more mountains of evidence are collected, which they cannot disclose
to the public, although it is all right to let the prime suspect keep it safe under wraps.
Make of that what you will.
" Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the
production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge
of the facts that are relevant to that topic. "
"... This was Bellingcrap's bread-and-butter function, to use satellite photos and make them say whatever Bellingcrap had been tasked to say they were, relying on the fact that mainstream media organisations rarely employ people expert in interpreting satellite imagery, before people outside the MSM environment started voicing suspicions about how the "evidence" for the official MH17 narrative was being worked and whipped into shape to fit that narrative. ..."
" The point is that we often tend to believe satellite photography shows what its
presenters say it shows because we do not have the skill to interpret it ourselves "
This was Bellingcrap's bread-and-butter function, to use satellite photos and make them
say whatever Bellingcrap had been tasked to say they were, relying on the fact that
mainstream media organisations rarely employ people expert in interpreting satellite imagery,
before people outside the MSM environment started voicing suspicions about how the "evidence"
for the official MH17 narrative was being worked and whipped into shape to fit that
narrative.
It's my understanding that there is a company in Colorado, called Digital something or
other, that supplies a huge amount of satellite imagery to the US government and other big
clients.
China diplomacy is trying to thread very carefully to avoid the fallout. The answer of RIA
Novosti is good example here. Counterattacks are few (see the answer to CC question with the
following money quote: "I respect your right to ask the question, but I'm afraid you're not
framing the question in the right way. One has to have a sense of right and wrong. Without it, a
person cannot be trusted, and a country cannot hold its own in the family of nations. " This is
implicit slap in the face for the USA.
RIA Novosti: How do you assess China-Russia relations in the context of COVID-19? Do you
agree with some people's characterization that China and Russia may join force to challenge US
predominance?
Wang Yi: While closely following the COVID-19 response in Russia, we have done and will
continue to do everything we can to support it. I believe under the leadership of President
Vladimir Putin, the indomitable Russian people will defeat the virus and the great Russian
nation will emerge from the challenge with renewed vigor and vitality.
Since the start of COVID-19, President Xi Jinping and President Putin have had several phone
calls and kept the closest contact between two world leaders. Russia is the first country to
have sent medical experts to China, and China has provided the most anti-epidemic assistance to
Russia. Two-way trade has gone up despite COVID-19. Chinese imports from Russia have grown
faster than imports from China's other major trading partners. The two countries have supported
and defended each other against slanders and attacks coming from certain countries. Together,
China and Russia have forged an impregnable fortress against the "political virus" and
demonstrated the strength of China-Russia strategic coordination.
I have no doubt that the two countries' joint response to the virus will give a strong boost
to China-Russia relations after COVID-19. China is working with Russia to turn the crisis into
an opportunity. We will do so by maintaining stable cooperation in energy and other traditional
fields, holding a China-Russia year of scientific and technological innovation, and
accelerating collaboration in e-commerce, bio-medicine and the cloud economy to make them new
engines of growth in our post-COVID-19 economic recovery. China and Russia will also enhance
strategic coordination. By marking the 75th anniversary of the UN, we stand ready to firmly
protect our victory in WWII, uphold the UN Charter and basic norms of international relations,
and oppose any form of unilateralism and bullying. We will enhance cooperation and coordination
in the UN, SCO, BRICS and G20 to prepare ourselves for a new round of the once-in-a-century
change shaping today's world.
I believe that with China and Russia standing shoulder-to-shoulder and working back-to-back,
the world will be a safer and more stable place where justice and fairness are truly
upheld.
Cable News Network: We've seen an increasingly heated "war of words" between China and the
US. Is "wolf warrior" diplomacy the new norm of China's diplomacy?
Wang Yi: I respect your right to ask the question, but I'm afraid you're not framing the
question in the right way. One has to have a sense of right and wrong. Without it, a person
cannot be trusted, and a country cannot hold its own in the family of nations.
There may be all kinds of interpretations and commentary about Chinese diplomacy. As
China's Foreign Minister, let me state for the record that China always follows an
independent foreign policy of peace. No matter how the international situation may change, we
will always stand for peace, development and mutually beneficial cooperation, stay committed
to upholding world peace and promoting common development, and seek friendship and
cooperation with all countries. We see it as our mission to make new and greater
contributions to humanity.
China's foreign policy tradition is rooted in its 5,000-year civilization. Since ancient
times, China has been widely recognized as a nation of moderation. We Chinese value peace,
harmony, sincerity and integrity. We never pick a fight or bully others, but we have
principles and guts. We will push back against any deliberate insult to resolutely defend our
national honor and dignity. And we will refute all groundless slander with facts to
resolutely uphold fairness, justice and human conscience.
The future of China's diplomacy is premised on our commitment to working with all
countries to build a community with a shared future for mankind. Since we live in the same
global village, countries should get along peacefully and treat each other as equals.
Decisions on global affairs should be made through consultation, not because one or two
countries say so. That's why China advocates for a multi-polar world and greater democracy in
international relations. This position is fully aligned with the direction of human progress
and the shared aspiration of most countries. No matter what stage of development it reaches,
China will never seek hegemony. We will always stand with the common interests of all
countries. And we will always stand on the right side of history. Those who go out of their
way to label China as a hegemon are precisely the ones who refuse to let go of their
hegemonic status.
The world is undergoing changes of a kind unseen in a century and full of instability and
turbulence. Confronted by a growing set of global challenges, we hope all countries will
realize that humanity is a community with a shared future. We must render each other more
support and cooperation, and there should be less finger-pointing and confrontation. We call
on all nations to come together and build a better world for all.
"... The recently published Pentagon budget request for 2021 makes clear that the United States is retooling for a potential intercontinental war with China and/or Russia. It asks for $705 billion to "shift focus from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a greater emphasis on the types of weapons that could be used to confront nuclear giants like Russia and China," noting that it requires "more advanced high-end weapon systems, which provide increased standoff, enhanced lethality and autonomous targeting for employment against near-peer threats in a more contested environment." The military has recently received the first batch of low-yield nuclear warheads that experts agree blurs the line between conventional and nuclear conflict, making an all out example of the latter far more likely. ..."
"... "Our governments spend over 1.75 trillion dollars every year on wars, on weapons, on conflict If we could deploy that sort of resource to address the coronavirus crisis that we're currently living through, imagine what else we could be doing. Imagine how we could be fighting the climate crisis, how we could be addressing global poverty, inequality. Our priority should never be war; our priorities need to be public health, the environment, and human well being." ..."
Just three years ago, Americans had a neutral view of China (and nine years ago it was
strongly favorable). Today, the same polls show that 66 percent of Americans dislike the
country. As the U.S. military turns its attention from the Middle East to conflict with Russia
and China, American war planners are advising that the United States greatly expand its own
online "psychological operations" against Beijing.
A new report from the Financial Times details
how top brass in Washington are strategizing a new Cold War with China, describing it less as
World War III and more as "kicking each other under the table." Last week, General Richard
Clarke, head of Special Operations Command, said that the "kill-capture missions" the military
conducted in Afghanistan were inappropriate for this new conflict, and Special Operations must
move towards cyber influence campaigns instead.
Military analyst David Maxwell, a former Special Ops soldier himself, advocated for a
widespread culture war, which would include the Pentagon commissioning what he called
"Taiwanese Tom Clancy" novels, intended to demonize China and demoralize its citizens, arguing
that Washington should "weaponize" China's one-child policy by bombarding Chinese people with
stories of the wartime deaths of their only children, and therefore, their bloodline.
A not dissimilar tactic was used during the first Cold War against the Soviet Union, where
the CIA sponsored
a huge network of artists, writers and thinkers to promote liberal and social-democratic
critiques of the U.S.S.R., unbeknownst to the public, and, sometimes, even the artists
themselves.
Manufacturing consent
In the space of only a few months, the Trump administration has gone from praising China's
response to the COVID-19 pandemic to blaming them for the outbreak, even suggesting they pay
reparations for their alleged negligence. Just three years ago, Americans had a neutral view of
China (and nine years ago it was strongly favorable). Today, the
same polls show that 66 percent of Americans dislike China, with only 26 percent holding a
positive opinion of the country. Over
four-in-five people essentially support a full-scale economic war with Beijing, something
the president threatened
to enact last week.
The corporate press is certainly doing their part as well, constantly
framing China as an authoritarian threat to the United States, rather than a neutral force
or even a potential ally, leading to a surge in
anti-Chinese racist attacks at home.
Retooling for an intercontinental war
Although analysts have long
warned that the United States gets its "ass handed to it" in hot war simulations with China
or even Russia, it is not clear whether this is a sober assessment or a self-serving attempt to
increase military spending. In 2002, the U.S. conducted a war game trial invasion of Iraq,
where it was catastrophically defeated by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, commanding Iraqi forces,
leading to the whole experiment being nixed halfway through. Yet the subsequent invasion was
carried out without massive loss of American lives.
The recently published Pentagon budget
request for 2021 makes clear that the United States is retooling for a potential
intercontinental war with China and/or Russia. It asks for $705 billion to "shift focus from
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a greater emphasis on the types of weapons that could be
used to confront nuclear giants like Russia and China," noting that it requires "more advanced
high-end weapon systems, which provide increased standoff, enhanced lethality and autonomous
targeting for employment against near-peer threats in a more contested environment." The
military has recently received the first batch of low-yield nuclear warheads that
experts agree blurs the line between conventional and nuclear conflict, making an all out
example of the latter far more likely.
There has been no meaningful pushback from the Democrats. Indeed, Joe Biden's team has
suggested
that the United States' entire industrial policy should revolve around "competing with China"
and that their "top priority" is dealing with the supposed threat Beijing poses. The former
vice-president has also attacked Trump from the right on China, trying to present him as a tool
of Beijing, bringing to mind how Clinton portrayed him in 2016 as a Kremlin asset. (Green Party
presidential frontrunner Howie Hawkins has promised to cut the military budget by 75 percent and
to unilaterally disarm).
Nevertheless, voices raising concern about a new arms race are few and far between. Veteran
deproliferation activist Andrew Feinstein is one exception, saying :
"Our governments spend over 1.75 trillion dollars every year on wars, on weapons, on
conflict If we could deploy that sort of resource to address the coronavirus crisis that
we're currently living through, imagine what else we could be doing. Imagine how we could be
fighting the climate crisis, how we could be addressing global poverty, inequality. Our
priority should never be war; our priorities need to be public health, the environment, and
human well being."
However, if the government is going to launch a new psychological war against China, it is
unlikely antiwar voices like Feinstein's will feature much in the mainstream press.
Just take a look at the progressive schooling of 'diplomats' who end up in American
ambassadorial and consular posts. Where do they come from? The Heritage Institute, Legatum,
the American Enterprise Institute, and various other America-Triumphant think tanks. Look at
Michael McFaul, and his absurd just-a-ole-homeboy-who-loves-Russia video he put out before
taking up his official duties in Moscow. And he barely had the dust of New York off his shoes
before he was huddling with the Russian opposition. I don't know why Russia even affects to
be surprised by their attitudes.
While Flynn is a questionable figure with his Iran warmongering and the former tenure as a
Turkey lobbyist, it is important to understand that in Kislyak call he mainly played the role
of Israel lobbyist. This important fact was carefully swiped under the carpet by FBI
honchos.
Only the second and less important part of the call (the request to Russia to postpone the
reaction after the Obama expulsion of diplomats) was related to Russia. Not sure it was
necessary: Russia probably understood that this was a provocation and would wait for the dust
to settle in any case. Revenge is a dish that is better served cold. Later Russia used this
as a pretext to equalize the number of US diplomats in Russia with the number of Russian
diplomat in the USA which was a knockdown for any color revolution plans in this country:
people with the knowledge of the country and connections to its neoliberal fifth column were
sent packing.
But Russian neoliberal compradors were decimated earlier after EuroMaydan in Kiev, so this
was actually a service to the USA allowing to save the USA same money (as Trump
acknowledged)
Also strange how former chief of DIA fell victim of such a crude trap administered by a
second, if nor third rate person -- Strzok. Looks like he was already on the hook and, as
such, defenseless for his Turkey lobbing efforts. Which makes Comey-McCabe attempt to entrap
him look like a shooing fish in the tank.
Note to managerial class neoliberals (PMC). Your Russiagate stance is to be expected and
has nothing to do with virtue.
it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press --
the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story.
Trump is mostly concerned with giving handouts to the MIC because he thinks "the economy" is
based on jobs in the MIC since that is what they tell him is where US manufacturing is now
based.
Posted by: Kali | May 23 2020 18:16 utc | 2
To a degree, it is true. However, the problem with MIC as an economic stimulant is rather
pitiful multiplier effect. For starters, the costs are hopelessly bloated. Under rather
watchful Putin, Russia does its piece of arms race at a very small fraction of American
costs. By the same token, pro-economy effects of arms spending in USA are seriously diluted
-- the spending is surely there, but the extend of activity is debatable For example, in
aerospace, there is a big potential for civilian applications of technologies developed for
the military. Scant evidence in Boeing that should be a prime beneficiary. The fabled toilet
seat (that cost many thousands of dollars) similarly failed to find civilian applications.
Civilians inclined to overpriced toilets, like Mr. Trump himself, rely on low-tech methods
like gold-plating.
A wider problem is shared by entire GOP: aversion to any government programs, and least of
all industry promoting programs, that could benefit ordinary citizens. This is the exclusive
domain of the free market! Once you refuse to consider that, only MIC remains, plus some
boondogles like interstate highways. Heaven forfend to improve public transit or to repair
almost-proverbial crumbling dams and bridges.
We have to ask cui bono - who benefits from a new nuclear arms race? General Electric,
Boeing, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman et al. No one else really.
Since these corporations also own the Congress and have zillions to fund Trump's re-election,
they will probably get the go-ahead to spend the rest of the world into oblivion.
Apart from the obvious fact that the MIC is the only viable engine of propulsion of the
American "real economy" (a.k.a. "manufacturing"), there's the more macabre fact that, if we
take Trump's administration first military papers into consideration, it seems there's a
growing coterie inside the Pentagon and the WH that firmly believes MAD can be broken
vis-a-vis China.
Hence the "Prompt Global Strike" doctrine (which is taking form with the commission of the
new B-21 "Raider" strategic bomber, won by Northrop Grumman), the rise of the concept of
"tactical nukes" (hence the extinction of the START, and the Incirlik Base imbroglio post
failed coup against Erdogan) and, most importantly, the new doctrine of "bringing manufacture
back".
The USA is suffering from a structural valorization problem. The only way out is finding
new vital space through which it can initiate a new cycle of valorization. The only
significant vital space to be carved out in the 21st Century is China, with its 600
million-sized middle class (the world's largest middle class, therefore the world's largest
potential consumer market). It won two decades with the opening of the ex-Soviet vital space,
but it was depleted in the 2000s, finally exploding in 2006-2008.
How many decades does the Americans think they can earn by a hypothetical unilateral
destruction of China?
Having a treaty that limits power (in this case nuclear) on the same level for the US and any
other country is simply totally against the ideology of US Superority/Exeptionalism.
That seems to be the driving (psychological and ideological) factor behind this charade.
And like this sick ideology always ends: It too will backfire.
@gepay: another problem is people that disagree with Bernhard on COVID, but then use this
disagreement to not read his artciles anymore.
So many people only want to read what they want to hear, and run away at the first real
different view.
The narcissism, that our neoliberal societies inducded in its people the last decade shows..
And seeing both sides and everything in between is not possible anymore for a majority it
seems.
And living in a bubble is so comforting and easy in todays world. On MSM and on Alt Media
alike.
"...that may well fit Trump's plans of pushing all arms control regimes into oblivion."
It's not just arms control regimes, as the WHO business showed. This is the Roy Cohn agenda
showing up again- the old GOP objection to the UN and all other international organisations.
It is pure ideology-the US has gained immensely from dominating the organisations of which it
is a part, leaving them makes no sense at all.
As to 'spending China to oblivion". This only works when every Pentagon dollar spent
forces China or Russia to spend a dollar themselves. In such a contest the richest country
wins. But that only works in the context of pre-nuclear warfare. With the nuclear deterrent
it becomes possible to opt out of all the money wasting nonsense represented by the Pentagon
budget, sit back and say, as the Chinese diplomat evidently did, "Just try it."
Which adds up to the conclusion that it is wholly irrational of the United States to denounce
treaties designed to reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used: it is to the
advantage of Washington that other powers, potential rivals, are forced to build up
conventional forces because they are bound by treaty not to rely on nuclear weapons.
So, again: pure ideology designed for domestic consumption and advanced by the most
reactionary elements in American society- the Jesse Helms good ol' boys who make the neo-cons
look almost human.
He likes economic war (against everybody), they want actual war. Laguerre | May 23 2020 20:17
utc
Trump has a primitive mercantile mind. There is nothing inherently wrong about
mercantilism, but a primitive version of anything tends to be mediocre at best. Thus he loves
war that give profit, like Yemen where natives are bombed with expensive products made in USA
(and unfortunately, also UK, France etc., but the bulk goes to USA). Then he loves wars the
he thinks will give profit, like "keeping oil fields in Syria". Some people told him that oil
fields are profitable (although they can go bankrupt just like casinos).
Privately, I think that Trump wanted to make a war with Iran, but the generals explained
him what kind of disaster that would be.
One difference is that Democrats are aligned with uber Zionist of slightly less rabid
variety than Republicans. A bit like black bears vs grizzlies. Unfortunately, like in the
animal kingdom, when the push comes to shove, black bears defer to grizzlies, so on the side
of Palestinians etc. there is no difference.
Billingslea's "spending ... into oblivion" statement reflects the belief, still widespread
among US neocon political / military elites, that the Soviet Union was brought down and
destroyed by its attempts to keep up with US military spending throughout the 1980s. This
alone tells us how steeped in past fantasy the entire US political and military establishment
must be. Compared to Rip van Winkle, these people are comatose.
Spending the enemy into oblivion may be "tried and true" practice but only when the enemy
is much poorer than yourself in arms production and in one type of weapons manufacture. That
certainly does not apply to either Russia or China these days. Both nations think more
strategically and do not waste precious resources in parading and projecting military power
abroad, or rely almost exclusively on old, decaying technologies and a narrow mindset
obsessed with always being top dog in everything.
After the Soviet collapse thirty years ago, that order expanded its jurisdiction. Proponents sought to subsume the old Eastern
Bloc, including perhaps Russia itself, into the American sphere. And they wanted to do so firmly on Washington's terms. Even as the
country began to deindustrialize and growth slowed, American leadership developed a taste for fresh crusades in the Middle East;
exotic savagery, went the subtext, had to be brought finally to heel. China was a rising force, but its regime would inevitably crater
or democratize. Besides, Beijing was a peaceful trading partner of the United States.
2008, 2016 and 2020 -- the financial crisis, Trump's election and now the Coronavirus and its reaction -- have been successive
gut punches to this project, a hat trick which may seal its demise. Ask anyone attempting to board an international flight, or open
a new factory in China, or get anything done at the United Nations: the world is de-globalizing at a speed almost as astonishing
as it integrated. Post-Covid, U.S.-China confrontation is not a choice. It's a reality. The liberal international order is not lamentable.
It's already dead.
This was the argument made by Bannon. It had other backers, of course, within both the academy and an emerging foreign policy
counter-establishment loathe to repeat the mistakes of the past thirty years. But coming from the former top political advisor to
the sitting president of the United States, it was provocative stuff. Bannon articulated a perspective which seemed to be on the
tip of the foreign policy world's tongue. And it riled people up. The most fulsome rebuttal to the zeitgeist was perhaps The Jungle
Grows Back , tellingly written by Robert Kagan, an Iraq War architect. The peripheral world was dangerous brush; the United States
was the machete.
Trumpian nationalism has chugged along for nearly three years since -- stripped, some might say, of its Bannonite flair and intelligence.
The most hysterical prophecies of what the president might do -- that he might withdraw from the geriatric North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, for instance -- have not come to pass. Trump has howled and roared, true: but so far, his most disruptive foreign policy
maneuver has been escalation against Iran.
It's very good to hear the right getting a little humility in them now and talking less empire, more multilateralism. Trump has
been way too concerned with his MAGA personality cult to understand the value of humility.
The world's a big place. The reality is, America first will more and more mean working together with other nations for mutual
benefit, and often their gain will indirectly be to our own also.
Working more and more, yes. This is why US is undercutting Germany's competitiveness, by blocking a cheap source of energy via
NS2...
As Bush said, you are either with us or against us. Nothing has changed and nothing will change, but it will become uglier.
If it were to desire multi-polarity, the US would tolerate not only states, like KSA, where the Royals own everything, but also
states, like Iran, or Cuba, where the people (through the government/state) owns assets (land and productive facilities). But
the US does not tolerate such type of multi-polarity, not open to US "investment" and ownership (bought with fiat money).
Cold War II started in 2007, with Putin. Popcorn & beer lads!
It does seem like there's a creeping idea, not just on dissident internet sites now like before, that the Russian rivalry is a
luxury of the past. Even the liberals are going to have to reconcile with liberal hegemony not being workable and settle for something
less. Owing to distance and mutual interest (common rivals Britain and Germany) Russia and America had a long history of friendship
before the Cold war.
I sadly agree about the predatory nature of much of America does. I think it really is a reflection of partially, imperial
arrogance, but even moreso a matter of who runs the country. Oligarchy is poorly checked in modern America. Maybe we can hope
for a humbled oligarchy, at least.
Trump is indeed an empty suit and a demagogue, but he ran on a decent nationalist platform (probably thanks to Bannon, who is
almost certainly a closeted gay. No joke... a deep-in-the-closet, self-hating gay. The navy can change a man, and he's a fraud
in other ways: see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade"). Trump does have an absurd ego, and he
probably figured becoming president would impress Ivanka too.
Also, the Uyghurs are not totally innocent victims... Some of them are US-financed revolutionaries and some of them have committed
terrorism: see Godfree Roberts at Unz Review: "China and the Uyghurs" (January 10, 2019) and Ajit Singh at The Grayzone: "Inside
the World Uyghur Congress: The US-backed right-wing regime change network seeking the 'fall of China'" (March 5, 2020). Some of
our pathetic propagandists make it seem like they're in concentration camps, but there is objective reporting that suggests it's
more like job training programs and anti-jihad classes. Absurd lies have certainly been told about North Korea and many other
countries, so be skeptical.
Yeah, let's get that hate on for China - why they're as bad as Russia, Iran and Venezuela put together and there are so many more
of them. Especially a lot are available right here in the US and have lots of restaurants that can be boycotted. Not that many
Venezuelan restaurants around. Seriously, can Americans get over this childishness? When the US closes down its 800+ overseas
bases and withdraws its fleet to its own shores instead of Iran's and China's, then maybe Americans will be entitled to complain
about someone else's imperialism.
Most of anti-China stuff Hawley, much like Trump, claims always feels empty populism for WWC voters.
1) It is reasonable to be against our Middle East endeavors and not be so anti-China.
2) I still don't understand how it is China fault for stealing manufacturing jobs when it is the US private sector that does it.
(And Vietnam exist, etc.) So without Charles Koch and Tim Cook behind this trade stuff, it feels like empty populism.
3) The most obvious point on China to me is how little they do use military measures for their 'imperialism.'
One problem with all this populism emptiness, is there is a lot issues with China to work on:
1) This virus could have impact economies in Africa and South America a lot where the nations have to renegotiate their loans
to China. I have no idea how this goes but there will be tensions here. Imperialism is tough in the long run.
2) There are nations banding together on China's reaction to the virus and it seems reasonable that US joining them would be more
effective than Trump's taunting.
3) To prove Trump administration incompetence, I have no idea how he is not turning this crisis into more medical equipment and
drugs manufacturing. (My guess is this both takes a lot of work and frankly a lot of manufacturing plants have risks of spreads
so noone wants to invest.)
Hawley is a "fake populist" according to Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade" and I just saw fake-patriot
airhead Pete Hegseth claim China wants to destroy our civilization, on fake populist Tucker Carlson's show. It's well-established
that Fox News and the GOP are still neocons and fake patriots... after all, the Trump administration is run by Jared Kushner,
a protégé of Rupert Murdoch and Bibi Netanyahu.
Hawley's speech on the Senate floor yesterday deserves much more criticism than it gets here. This article from Reason
does a good job breaking down the speech and pointing out what's right AND wrong about it:
What if there is reduced wars and civil wars n the world today than ever. (So say anytime before 1991?) I get all the Middle East
& African Wars but look at the rest of the world. When in history have the major West Europe powers not had a major war in 75
years. After issues of post Cold War East Europe is probably more peaceful than ever. Look at South America. In the 1970s the
Civil Wars raged in all those nations. Or the Pacific Rim? Japan, China, and other nations are fighting with Military right now.
This is certainly less than perfect but the number of people (per million) dieing in wars and civil wars are at historic lows.
The fall of Soviet Union and weakening of Russia allowed US and Western Europe to attack Serbia in 1990s. A stronger Russia wouldn't
have allowed that to happen (who's trying to get Crimea from Russia's control now?). But with US aggressiveness and bellicosity
(including nuclear posture) at Russia's borders do not bode well.
But it is true, less important people are dying now...
Chinese imperialism? Uh ... other than shaking trees and drumming up fear can I get like one example of that.
Taiwan, part of China since the 1500's and they are have not issued any new threats since 1949.
Hong Kong - stolen from China and now reluctantly given back with lots of conditions. If they deserve the right of independence
through referendum I'm all for it as long as we apply this standard uniformly including parts of Texas, San Diego, New Mexico,
Arizona, any place that has a large foreign population will do.
Yeah, "Chinese imperialism" is complete nonsense, just like the claim that they definitely originated the coronavirus, caused
Americans to be under house arrest, and caused a depression. In fact, the origin of the virus is far from clear, and it wasn't
China who hyped up and exaggerated the danger and wrecked the economy. It was our superficial corporate media and government that
did that (perhaps deliberately)... the same people who are desperately trying to deflect blame onto the CCP. The same people who
have been mismanaging and ruining America for decades in order to enrich themselves.
"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The
net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless."
Most people would be well served to read Chomsky a first time.
However, it should be noted, Chomsky's critiques of neoliberalism aren't grounded in nationalism, xenophobia, and racism. So a
lot of TAC readers (and especially writers) may be disappointed.
Hawley seems like the natural choice for the potential future of the GOP, that is a post-fusionist or post-liberal GOP. However
the one thing that worries me is his foreign policy. He talks the talk, but I'm having trouble to see if he walks the walk. As
Mills noted he didn't vote to end support for the genocidal war in Yemen, a war that serves purely the interests of Saudi Arabia
and not our own. He has criticized David Petraeus before, but its important not to be fooled by just rhetoric. While accepting
he'll be better than any Tom Cotton or (god forbid) Nikki Haley in 2024, his foreign policy needs to be examined more until then.
Our response to the epidemic was 100% 'made in China'. The entire 'Western World' decided to copy Beijing. If that doesn't establish
a new level of leadership for China, I don't know what would. I'm surprised this is not more widely recognized. You can run down
the many parallels, including the pathetic photo-op attempt by the West to build those emergency hospitals (Nightingale in the
UK, Javits Center, etc. all across the US), which were just to show 'hey we can build hospitals in a few weeks also' ... never
mind they could never, and were never used for anything at all.
At this point, Hawley is all talk. Further, much of his talking amounts to little more than expressing resentment. I agree that
the US needs to follow a more nationalist pathway, which involved making itself less dependent on its chief geopolitical rival.
But accomplishing this is going to require more than bashing China and asserting that cosmopolitan Americans are traitors. At
this point, Hawley has no positive program to offer. Giving paid speeches that vilify coastal elites and China is not a political
plan.
Further, I agree that we're probably moving away from the universalist order that's guided much of our thinking since the 1990s.
But isolationism is not the answer. We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account of China's rise as
a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a
good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?
Lastly, I find the article's reference to China's treatment of gays and lesbians to be curious. I'd first note that using the
term "homosexual" in reference to people is generally viewed as an offensive slur. Further, China's treatment of gay people isn't
so bad, and tends to be better than what Hawley's evangelical supporters would afford. Moreover, China is a multi-ethnic country.
It's program in Xinjiang has more to do with maintaining political order than a desire to repress non-Han people.
The general chest puffing nature of the American right makes it hard for them to understand that America might need to work with
other countries at a deep level, and not as vassals either.
". We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account
of China's rise as a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a
series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a
good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?"
The thing is that the post-WWII liberal international order was good for things like that.
Trump and the GOP quite deliberately destroyed it. Before that, the US would have the trust of many other governments; now they
don't trust the US - even if Biden is elected, the next Trump is on the way.
"We benefit if countries that share our opposition to Chinese imperialism -- countries like India and Japan, Vietnam, Australia
and Taiwan -- are economically independent of China, and standing shoulder to shoulder with us,"
OK....then can someone explain why Hawley opposed the TPP, which was designed to accomplish just this. The TPP was supposed
to create trading relationships between these countries and the United States in the context of an agreement that excluded China.
In this instance people like Hawley were advancing China's position and interests (I suspect simply because it was a treaty negotiated
under Obama, which apparently was enough to make it bad).
Probably because Hawley seems more interested in demagoguery than accomplishing anything productive. Never mind that 95% of the
people who voted for him probably couldn't find Japan or Vietnam on a map.
TPP was not geared against China as a blanket thing, as an entire exclusion of China. The perfidy of TPP was that it was against
any economic interactions with State Owned Enterprises (didn't mention the origin, didn't have to). The ultimate goal wasn't to
isolate China but to force privatization of said SOEs, preferably run from Wall Street.
Private property good and = Democracy; State property bad = Authoritarianism, dictatorship, etc. It is a fallacy here somewhere,
cannot really put my finger on it...
Except this is all lies. On each chance to actually do something Hawley has sided with international corporations, as a good conservative
will always do. Fixing globalism will never come form the right, this is all smoke and mirrors for the religious right, aka the
rubes. And they are perpetual suckers and will keep buying into this crap as our nation is hollowed out and raided by the rich.
And that, is TRUE conservatism.
"Now we must recognize that the economic system designed by Western policy makers at the end of the Cold War does not serve
our purposes in this new era," proclaimed Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri. "And it does not meet our needs for this new day." He
continued, perhaps too politely: "And we should admit that multiple of its founding premises were in error."
The "error" in the founding premises of the post-WWII economic system was that it assumed that the US would act in a responsible
manner. Instead we have run huge budget deficits and borrowed the difference from foreigners, randomly invading other countries,
undermined the institutions we set up, bullied smaller countries rather than working with them, and abused our control of the
financial system.
No, that old economic system served our interests very well, as long as we respected the institutions we set up and kept our
own house in order. We haven't been doing any of that for at least 20 years.
Let's bear in mind that the Republican leader of the Senate married into a wealthy Chinese family that makes its money from hauling
Chinese exports to our shores and the shores of other developed nations.
This is all just hollow bravado meant to appeal to the right's nativist base.
I am not into the thinking that everyone whose politics I don't support is acting in bad faith. We are talking about the actions
of literally millions of people. Accusing this or that person of acting in bad faith because of personal interest is just dirty
politics dressed up as perceptiveness. I am not accusing any specific person of acting in bad faith, although some of the people
who pushed opening up to China because more business in China would create a class of people who would eventually push for Democracy
there, were indeed acting in bad faith. They wanted access to cheap labor with no rights.
Yet, no doubt many of them actually believed the propaganda, because it supposedly happened in South Korea, Taiwan and other
places. And especially the ones who switched the line to "globalism" when it was clear that the supposed indigenous pressures
for Democracy did not materialize also acted in bad faith. I only assume that some of were because once I understood the rationale
of the CCCP it was clear to me that China was radically different, and there is no way that so many of those guys who are smarter
and more knowledgeable about political systems than me, did not figure it out. But I am not going to behave as if it the Republicans
alone who were pushing either of these two false messages.
Criticizing China for "imperialism" is the height of hypocrisy on multiple levels. First, the United States has engaged in economic
imperialism, sometimes enforced with military intervention, for a hundred years. Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" if you
doubt that. Second, this is the same guy who voted against our proxy war in Yemen. Third, one could very reasonably argue that
China is simply applying the lessons it learned at the hands of Western imperialists since 1800s..
It's good that SOME Republicans are at least giving lip service to the idea of bringing back manufacturing in this country.
But you have to thank Trump for that, not the GOP establishment. The offshoring of American manufacturing as part of "free trade"
was strongly supported (if not led) by the GOP going back to the 1980s.
And check out John Perkins's books ("Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", etc.) for up-to-date information. It's obviously true
that criticizing China for "imperialism" is ridiculously hypocritical but people like Senator Hawley know they can get away with
it because they understand how propaganda works on the dumbed-down masses.
They understand doublethink, repetition, appeal to patriotism, appeal to racism, appeal to fear, etc. People like Rupert Murdoch
do this every day... poorly, but well enough to be effective on a lot of people.
Incidentally, the Republicans may talk about bringing manufacturing back to the US but they're actually planning on shifting
it to India (see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade").
If Washington lured the Soviet Union into it's demise in Afghanistan, which left that minor
empire in shambles - socially, militarily, economically - it was the nuclear conflagration at
Chernobyl that put the corpse in the ground.....
(Watch the GREAT HBO five-part tragedy on it and you will see that the brutally heroic
response of the Soviets, that saved the Western World at least temporarily, but is the
portrait of self-sacrifice)
What was lost in the Soviets fumbling immediate post-explosion cover-up was the trust of
their Eastern European satellite countries. That doomed that empire. So much military might
was given up in Afghanistan, then on Chernobyl, it was not clear if the Soviets had the
wherewithal to put down the rebellions that spread from Czechoslovakia to East Germany and
beyond.
Covid-19 will do the same to the American Empire.
As its own infrastructure has been laid waste by the COLLASSAL MONEY PIT that is the
Pentagon, its flagrant use of the most valuable energy commodity, oil, to maintain some 4000
bases worldwide, this rickety over-extended upside down version of old Anglo-Dutch trading
empires, will finally collapse.
Loss of trust by the many craven satellites, in America's fractured response, to Covid-19
will put the final nail in its coffin.
A hot-shooting War may come next, but the empire cannot win it.
It would be nice if that were so, but it is very unlikely.
"So tired of reading propaganda."
Is that why you regurgitate it onto forums? Kinda like purging the system, eh?
If you are going to be judging China's economic health by their pollution levels then in
the future you will find yourself convinced that they have never recovered, even when it
becomes inescapably obvious that they have. The fact is that China's pollution levels are
never going back to 2019 levels, but that has nothing to do with their economic
health.
It really never ceases to amaze me how deeply rooted and pervasive the delusions and sense
of exceptionality is in America. It is woven into the thinking, from the lowest levels to the
very top of their thoughts, of even the very most intelligent Americans. It is apparently a
phenomenon that operates at an even deeper level than mass media brainwashing, as it seems it
was just as much a problem in every empire in history. That is, I am sure citizens of the
Roman Empire had the same blinding biases embedded deep below their consciousness. I guess
Marx was entirely correct to say that consciousness arises from material conditions, and
being citizen of an empire must be one of those material conditions that gives rise to this
all-pervasive and unconscious sense of exceptionality.
Go over to EOSDIS Worldview and take a look at satellite photos of China. Simple toggle in
lower left hand corner will take you to photos of same day, earlier years. Or any day in
satellite record.
The skies over China are clear. Chinese industry is not back at work. It may be that China
at 50% or even at 20% is a manufacturing powerhouse compared to a crumbling US. But until
China is back at work the thread so far is about the historical situation six months ago.
Xi used to do elaborately staged state appearances with well planned camera angles,
fabulous lighting, pomp and circumstance. He enjoyed the trappings of power and knew how to
use the trappings of power. Hasn't done that kind of state appearance since January.
China and the US are so different. The citizens of China cannot vote. The population's
movements are micromanaged by the government. This is not the case here (yet). And I hope it
is never the case. I agree with the premise that there are those in our government who are
living in a dream of the past and that is over, unless we want to destroy the world. But
China's government is so repressive. The rules must be obeyed. We seem to be compliant so far
of some of our government officials stepping over the bounds allowed by our Constitution, due
to the fear of C-19 engendered by the deep state (aka the bsmsm). But we will not do that
forever and our government cannot just start shooting big crowds of us as they can and have
done in China. Theirs is all top down rule, which is not the case here. Also, although it is
probably heretical to say this I am glad that the US has many cases of C-19. We will
eventually get herd immunity. IMO, China can lock down as many millions of citizens as they
wish; they cannot stop this virus and as time goes by they will have as many deaths and as
many cases as everybody else. Well, that is off the topic of the article. In the end I agree
that we are fighting weird battles we can never win and we citizens need to keep informing
our government employees that we just want to trade and make money, not threaten companies
and countries and lose money.
Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate
educational training
Seems rather typical of those making policy, not knowing much about the area they're
assigned to. If a person did know Arabic and had an understanding of the culture they
wouldn't get hired as they'd be viewed with suspicion, suspected of being sympathetic to
Middle Easterners. How and why these neocons can come back into government is puzzling and
one wonders who within the establishment is backing them. Judging by the quotes her father
certainly seems deranged and not someone to be allowed anywhere near any policy making
positions.
Flynn also seems to be a dolt what with his 'worldwide war against radical Islam'. Someone
should clue him in that much of this radical Islam has been created and stoked by the US who
hyped up radical Islam, recruiting and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin
Laden was there, remember? Flynn, a general, is unaware of this? Islamic jihadists are
America's Foreign Legion and have been used all over the Muslim world, most recently in
Syria. Does this portend war with Iran? Possibly, but perhaps Trump wouldn't want to go it
alone but would want the financial support of other countries. They've probably war-gamed it
to death and found it to be a loser.
"... The GWOT was promoted with brain-dead expressions like "there's a new sheriff in town" which, after the destruction of large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, later morphed into the matrix of the God-awful belief that something called "American Exceptionalism" existed. ..."
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo puts it another way, that the U.S. is a "force for good," but it was former Secretary Madeleine Albright who expressed the fantasy best , stating that " if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." ..."
"... One aspect of the American heavy footprint that is little noted is the ruin of many formerly functioning countries that it brings with it. Iraq and Libya might have been dictatorships before the U.S. intervened, but they gave their people a higher standard of living and more security than has been the case ever since. ..."
"... Libya, destroyed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, had the highest standard of living in Africa. Iraq is currently one of the world's most corrupt countries, so corrupt that there have been massive street demonstrations recently against the government's inability to do anything good for the its own people. Electricity and water supplies are, for example, less reliable than before the U.S. intervened seventeen years ago. ..."
"... The failures of the American foreign policy since George W. Bush have been accredited to the so-called neoconservatives, who successfully hijacked the Bush presidency. Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby and the merry crowd at the American Enterprise Institute had a major ally in Vice President Dick Cheney and were pretty much able to run wild, creating a casus belli for invading Iraq that was largely fabricated and which was completely against actual U.S. interests in the region. Apparently no one ever told Wolfie that Iraq was the Arab bulwark against Iranian ambitions and that Tehran would be the only major beneficiary in taking down Saddam Hussein. Since Iraq, the chameleonlike neocons have had a prominent voice in the mainstream media and have also played major roles in the shaping the foreign and national security policies of the presidencies that have followed George W. Bush. ..."
"... The $20 billion disbursed during the 15-month proconsulship of the CPA came from frozen and seized Iraqi assets held in the U.S. Most of the money was in the form of cash, flown into Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 "cashpaks," each cashpak having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and June 2004, drawn from the Iraqi accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The $100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons. ..."
"... Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There was also considerable money "off the books," including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil exports. Thus, the country was awash in unaccountable cash. British sources report that the CPA contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts. The contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in return. ..."
"... Many of its staff, like Michael Fleischer, were selected for their political affiliations rather than their knowledge of the jobs they were supposed to perform and many of them were not surprisingly neocons. One of them has now resurfaced in a top Pentagon position. She is Simone Ledeen , daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless became in 2003 a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad. ..."
"... Simone has now been appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense (DASD) for the Middle East, which is the principal position for shaping Pentagon policy for that region. ..."
"... Apparently Simone's gene pool makes her qualified to lead the Pentagon into the Middle East, where she no doubt has views that make her compatible with the Trump/Pompeo current spin on the Iranian threat. The neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) gushed "Simone Ledeen has worked at the Pentagon & Treasury and at a major bank. Exactly what we should want for such a position." Of course, FDD, the leading advocate of war with Iran, also wants someone who will green light destroying the Persians. ..."
The Global War on Terror or GWOT was declared in the wake of 9/11 by President George W.
Bush. It basically committed the United States to work to eliminate all "terrorist" groups
worldwide, whether or not the countries being targeted agreed that they were beset by
terrorists and whether or not they welcomed U.S. "help." The GWOT was promoted with
brain-dead expressions like "there's a new sheriff in town" which, after the destruction of
large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, later morphed into the matrix of the God-awful
belief that something called "American Exceptionalism" existed.
With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about
Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United States
can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes,
exceptional. That is generally how Donald Trump and hardline Republicans see the world, that
sovereignty exercised by foreign governments is and should be limited by the reach of the U.S.
military. Surrounding a competitor with military bases and warships is a concept that many in
Washington are currently trying to sell regarding a suitable response to the Chinese economic
and political challenge.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo puts it another way, that the U.S. is a "force for good,"
but it was former Secretary Madeleine Albright who expressed the fantasy best , stating
that " if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation.
We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger
here to all of us." She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children through U.S.
imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists. Either way, the U.S. gets to make the
decisions over life and death, which, since the GWOT began, have destroyed or otherwise
compromised the lives of millions of people, mostly concentrated in Asia.
One aspect of the American heavy footprint that is little noted is the ruin of many
formerly functioning countries that it brings with it. Iraq and Libya might have been
dictatorships before the U.S. intervened, but they gave their people a higher standard of
living and more security than has been the case ever since.
Libya, destroyed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, had the highest standard of living
in Africa. Iraq is currently one of the world's most corrupt countries, so corrupt that there
have been massive street demonstrations recently against the government's inability to do
anything good for the its own people. Electricity and water supplies are, for example, less
reliable than before the U.S. intervened seventeen years ago.
Add Afghanistan to the "most corrupt" list after 19 years of American tutelage and one comes
up with a perfect trifecta of countries that have been ruined. In a more rational world, one
might have hoped that at least one American politician might have stood up and admitted that we
have screwed up royally and it is beyond time to close the overseas bases and bring our troops
home. Well, actually one did so in explicit terms, but that was Tulsi Gabbard and she was
marginalized as soon as she started her run. Alluding to how Washington's gift to the world has
been corruption would be to implicitly deny American Exceptionalism, which is a no-no.
The failures of the American foreign policy since George W. Bush have been accredited to
the so-called neoconservatives, who successfully hijacked the Bush presidency. Paul Wolfowitz,
Doug Feith, Scooter Libby and the merry crowd at the American Enterprise Institute had a major
ally in Vice President Dick Cheney and were pretty much able to run wild, creating a casus
belli for invading Iraq that was largely fabricated and which was completely against actual
U.S. interests in the region. Apparently no one ever told Wolfie that Iraq was the Arab bulwark
against Iranian ambitions and that Tehran would be the only major beneficiary in taking down
Saddam Hussein. Since Iraq, the chameleonlike neocons have had a prominent voice in the
mainstream media and have also played major roles in the shaping the foreign and national
security policies of the presidencies that have followed George W. Bush.
Ironically, neocons mostly were critics of Donald Trump the candidate because he talked
"nonsense" about ending "useless wars" but they have been trickling back into his
administration since he has made it clear that he is not about to end anything and might in
fact be planning to attack Iran and maybe even Venezuela. The thought of new wars, particularly
against Israel's enemy Iran, makes neocons salivate.
The disastrous American occupation of Iraq from 2003-2004 was mismanaged by something called
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which might have been the most corrupt
quasi-government body to be seen in recent history. At least $20 billion that belonged to the
Iraqi people was wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly
how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost
will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means
that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.
Some of the corruption grew out of the misguided neoconservative agenda for Iraq, which
meant that a serious reconstruction effort came second to doling out the spoils to the war's
most fervent supporters. The CPA brought in scores of bright, young true believers who were
nearly universally unqualified. Many were recruited through the Heritage Foundation or American
Enterprise Institute websites, where they had posted their résumés. They were
paid six-figure salaries out of Iraqi funds, and most served in 90-day rotations before
returning home with their war stories. One such volunteer was former White House Press
Secretary Ari Fleischer's older brother Michael who, though utterly unqualified, was named
director of private-sector development for all of Iraq.
The $20 billion disbursed during the 15-month proconsulship of the CPA came from frozen
and seized Iraqi assets held in the U.S. Most of the money was in the form of cash, flown into
Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 "cashpaks," each cashpak
having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and
June 2004, drawn from the Iraqi accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The
$100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons.
Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There
was also considerable money "off the books," including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil
exports. Thus, the country was awash in unaccountable cash. British sources report that the CPA
contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as
high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts. The
contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in
return.
Many of its staff, like Michael Fleischer, were selected for their political
affiliations rather than their knowledge of the jobs they were supposed to perform and many of
them were not surprisingly neocons. One of them has now resurfaced in a top Pentagon position.
She is
Simone Ledeen , daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate
in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless
became in 2003 a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in
Baghdad.
Simone has now been appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense (DASD) for the
Middle East, which is the principal position for shaping Pentagon policy for that region.
Post 9/11, Ledeen's leading neocon father Michael was the source of the expressions "creative
destruction" and "total war" as relating to the Muslim Middle East, where "civilian lives
cannot be the total war's first priority The purpose of total war is to permanently force your
will onto another people." He is also a noted Iranophobe, blaming numerous terrorist acts on
that country even when such claims were ridiculous. He might also have been involved in the
generation in Italy of the fabricated Iraq Niger uranium documents that contributed greatly to
the march to war with Saddam.
Apparently Simone's gene pool makes her qualified to lead the Pentagon into the Middle
East, where she no doubt has views that make her compatible with the Trump/Pompeo current spin
on the Iranian threat. The neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) gushed "Simone
Ledeen has worked at the Pentagon & Treasury and at a major bank. Exactly what we should
want for such a position." Of course, FDD, the leading advocate of war with Iran, also wants
someone who will green light destroying the Persians.
Ledeen, a Brandeis graduate with an MBA from an Italian university, worked in and out of
government in various advisory capacities before joining Standard Chartered Bank. One of her
more interesting roles was as an advisor to General Michael Flynn in Afghanistan at a time when
Flynn was collaborating with her father on a book that eventually came out in 2016 entitled The
Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies. The book
asserts that there is a global war going on in which "We face a working coalition that extends
from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua." The
book predictably claims that Iran is at the center of what is an anti-American alliance.
The extent to which Simone has absorbed her father's views and agrees with them can, of
course, be questioned, but her appointment is yet another indication, together with the jobs
previously given to John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and
Elliot Abrams , that the Trump Administration is intent on pursuing a hardline aggressive
policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is also an unfortunate indication that the
neoconservatives, pronounced dead after the election of Trump, are back and resuming their
drive to obtain the positions of power that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
How was he leveraged to order the assassination of Iran's general Qasem Soleimani?
It's all about manufacturing new threats to his presidency, and then offering to switch
them off when he trades something the neocons want. The politics of extortion.
If "??Operation Iraqi Freedom"? may accurately be regarded as Wolfowitz's War in its
conception, then the aftermath of the war should be viewed as the Kissinger-Feith Occupation"
and continuation of illegal sanctions by "Democrat, Bill Clinton, and his meretricious Middle
East foreign policy team of Samuel "Sandy" Berger, Madeleine "??it's worth it"? Albright,
Dennis Ross, and Australian import, Martin Indyk. " but it was "
Kissinger's partner and frontman in Baghdad, Paul "??Jerry"? Bremer, which has effectively
destroyed Iraq as a nation-state, " and But within weeks of the invasion, Garner's tenure as
head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism
expert and protege of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner's
"musts". [My emphasis.] When, eventually, Garner confronted Rumsfeld, telling him: "There is
still time to rectify this," Rumsfeld refused to do so. And who was assisting Dr. Kissinger
to program the new U.S. proconsul in Baghdad? Who was Paul Bremer's primary contact at the
Pentagon, overseeing the occupation from Washington, with the blessing of Don Rumsfeld? None
other than the award winning hyperZionist zealot, Douglas "clean break" Feith, the man who
had advised Likud icon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iraq, Syria and Lebanon
in 1996 and tear up the Oslo "peace process ". Feith is a protege of Richard Perle.
Feith is on the Advisory Board of JINSA ,. Feith is a face card in the deck of the Institute
for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, headquartered in Jerusalem. The law office he
founded in 1986, Feith & Zell, is based in Israel, catering to Jewish-American
"??settlers"? on the West Bank. "
If nothing else, Bob Woodward's last fat book on Iraq, State of Denial, has performed a
valuable public service by ejecting the furtive Kissinger from the shadows. Woodward reports
that vice president Dick Cheney confided to him (Woodward) in the summer of 2005: "I probably
talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and I guess at
least once a month, Scooter [Libby] and I sit down with him." [Page 406.] Woodward goes on to
state: "The president also met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making the
former secretary the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs."
https://www.takimag.com/article/the_kissinger_connection/
Regarding Madeleine Albright: "She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children
through U.S. imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price
is worth it." That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists."
I think 'liberal interventionist' is a bit too weak for the 'lovely' Ms Albright and her
(in)famous quote.
Instead, let's try, "That is the basic credo of psychopathically sadistic zionist monsters
who exquisitely enjoy the thought of Arab children dying agonizingly slow deaths of
preventable diseases and starvation."
Ah, yes. That's a much more accurate assessment of the situation ..
Nixon is recorded as saying, "Any settlement will have to be imposed by both the US and the
Soviet Union". Yet, as he had told the Russian ambassador to Washington, "I don't want to
anger the American Jews who hold important positions in the press, radio and television".
The Jewish lobby has enormous influence on Congress. Nixon wanted to wait until he had won
his reelection and concluded the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam and then he could face
down the Jewish lobby. Later he told the ambassador, "I will deliver the Israelis".
In one of his final acts in office, he ordered a complete cutoff of assistance to Israel.
It was not to be.
A US judge
dismissed a defamation lawsuit by One America News Network against MSNBC over Rachel Maddow's
claims that OAN was "literally" Russian propaganda, ruling that her segment was merely "an
opinion" and "exaggeration." OAN sued the liberal talk show host and MSNBC for defamation,
demanding over $10 million in damages, back in September 2019. The lawsuit was based on the
July 22 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow launched a scathing broadside against
the conservative television network, labeling it "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right
wing news outlet in America" and "really literally paid Russian propaganda."
In the segment, Maddow cited a story by The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen about OAN's Kristian
Rouz, who has previously contributed to Sputnik as a freelance author. Toeing the general US
mainstream line on the Russian media, be it Sputnik or RT, Poulsen branded the Russian news
agency "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" and said Rouz was once on its
"payroll." Shortly after MSNBC's star talent peddled the claim, OAN rejected the
allegations as "utterly and completely false. " The outlet, which is owned by the
Herring Networks, a small California-based family company, said that it "has never been
paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," with its only funding
coming from the Herring family.
In their bid to win the case, Maddow herself, MSNBC, Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal
Media did not address the accusation itself - namely, that her claim about OAN was false - but
opted to invoke the First Amendment, insisting that the rant should be protected as free
speech.
Siding
with Maddow, the California district court defined Maddow's show as a mix of "news and
opinions," concluding that the manner in which the progressive host blurted out the
accusations "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the
contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." h
The court said that while Maddow "truthfully" related the story by the Daily Beast,
the statement about OAN being funded by the Kremlin was her "opinion" and
"exaggeration" of the said article.
While the legal trick helped Maddow to get off the hook without ever trying to defend her
initial statement, conservative commentators on social media wasted no time in pointing out
that dodging a payout to OAN literally meant admitting that Maddow was not, in fact, news.
Maddow won a lawsuit brought against her because the Judge found her show was "opinion," that is, her show isn't one that
shares actual facts with viewers.https://t.co/T1bgdSfc0P — Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 22, 2020Q
Just like Alex Jones’ defense in his divorce and custody proceedings: “I’m an entertainer”
Biden’s binder full of women (@Wallflowerface) May 22, 2020Q
So if she makes any statement(s) on air about being factual, then don’t we have an excellent appeal? — Mortimer Cinder
Block (@LeonardPGoldst1) May 22, 2020Q
It is still greatly dependent on the West to development and still is a developing
country.
So, yes, the West still has a realistic chance of destroying China and inaugurating a new
cycle of capitalist prosperity.
What happens with the "decoupling"/"Pivot to Asia" is that, in the West, there's
a scatological theory [go to 10th paragraph] - of Keynesian origin - that socialism can
only play "catch up" with capitalism, but never surpass it when a "toyotist phase" of
technological innovation comes (this is obviously based on the USSR's case). This theory
states that, if there's innovation in socialism, it is residual and by accident, and that
only in capitalism is significant technological advancement possible. From this, they posit
that, if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon "go back to its place" - which is
probably to Brazil or India level.
If China will be able to get out of the "Toyotist Trap" that destroyed the USSR, only time
will tell. Regardless, decoupling is clearly not working, and China is not showing any signs
so far of slowing down. Hence Trump is now embracing a more direct approach.
As for the USA, I've put my big picture opinion about it some days ago, so I won't repeat
myself. Here, it suffices to say that, yes, I believe the USA can continue to survive as an
empire - even if, worst case scenario, in a "byzantine" form. To its favor, it has: 1) the
third largest world population 2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality
arable land (35%), that basically guarantees food security indefinitely (for comparison, the
USSR only had 10% of arable land, and of worse quality) 3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans
(Pacific and Atlantic), plus a direct exit to the Arctic (Alaska and, de facto, Greenland and
Canada) 4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea),
bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily absorbed if
the situation asks to 4) still the financial superpower 5) still a robust "real" economy -
specially if compared to the micro-nations of Western Europe and East-Asia 6) a big fucking
Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power.
I don't see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist
movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only
for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else. The Star-and-Stripes is still
a very strong ideal to the average American, and nobody takes the idea of territory loss for
real. If that happens, though, it would change my equation on the survival of the American
Empire completely.
As for Hong Kong. I watched a video by the chief of the PLA last year (unfortunately, I
watched it on Twitter and don't have the link with me anymore). He was very clear: Hong Kong
does not present an existential threat to China. The greatest existential threat to China
are, by far, Xinjiang and Tibet, followed by Taiwan and the South China Sea. Hong Kong is a
distant fourth place.
I've long since concluded, there is no president who can withdraw the US from the Forever
Wars. Obama couldn't. Trump can't. Biden/Harris/Oprah/Gabbard/Pence won't.
There are a half-dozen permanent US policies that Americans don't get to vote on, and the
Permawar is one of them.
My God, Buchanan, I am staggered by the arrogance of this column. Where in the name of all
that's holy did you ever get the idea that America has the right to impose on anyone, from
Afghans through to Venezuelans, your (perceived) systems of thought, values and democracy?
How many American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan can even speak the local language?
Understand the local customs? None!!! They swan around in their sunglasses and battle gear
thinking that they are they return of the Terminator and wander why the locals absolutely
hate their collective guts! It's time that you collectively learned that America is NOT the
world's sheriff and that, as Benjamin Franklin said "A man convinced against his will, is of
the same opinion still".
Pat is not entirely wrong -- he hints at the explanation for failure:
"As imperialists, we Americans are conspicuous failures.
Moreover, with us, the national interest inevitably asserts itself."
As Imperialists there has never been anything but the (Elite) "national interest".
In short, these so called "losing" wars have been wars of aggression -- ie "bad" wars.
All Pat's talk of conversion, democracy etc is just so much nonsense.
"While we can defeat our enemies in the air and on the seas and in cyberspace, we cannot
persuade them to embrace secular democracy and its values any more than we can convert them
to Christianity" although they might be better persuaded to convert to Christianity –
traditional Christianity – than to embrace secular democracy and its "values".
Why would anyone want to embrace homosexuality, transgenderism, rad-feminism, opioids,
prozac, inequality, broken homes, mass shootings, mountainous debt, corrupt media, puppet
politicians & the rest of the filth & perversion that passes for "values" in secular
democracies like America or Western Europe?
Indeed, why would anyone in these decadent countries even want to defend these venal
"values", let alone try to spread them around the world like the Chinese plague?
No, "they are not trying to change us" but maybe they should.
As the British and French ultimately found out it costs more to run an empire than to loot
it. So the long retreat ensues. One would have thought that the Americans might have learned
this from history, but no! After all they were "the exceptional people, they stood taller
than the others and saw further." Errrm, no they didn't. Like their forbears they got bogged
down as well getting into debt which was only bailed out by their insistence that they would
not convert the dollar into gold.
Human nature and stupidity has got a long track-record and it isn't going to end anytime
soon.
The writer, and most commenters' are still under the erroneous belief that AMerica goes to
war in places then AMerica wins or loses or wastes lives or kill children. This is the
saddest part of the Yankee war machine: Americans joining the Army because they think theya
re joining the fight to defend the American Dream.
You-all are corporate gunmonkeys, fighting and killing and burning and bombing, not in the
name of freedom or apple pie, but in the name of Gulf Oil, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, JPMorgan,
Monsanto, PHBBillington, whatever Devil Rumsfeld calls his sack of shit these days .
America has not won any war anywhere, even their civil war was mostly just clearing the
land for the banks. That is because it is not America at war, she just supplies the cannon
fodder. And cannons. And radiactive scrapmetal to make bullets to mow down women and children
in the name of Investor Confidence.
But then, that is what your Zionist bible tells you to do, isn't it?
I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's
hopeless trying to "win."
If by the US you mean most of the people you may be right. But the people in the US
have no say in the actions of the US government which is controlled by psychopaths.
Afghanistan is hardly even a country as the average American might define one. There's really
nothing to "win"; we only occupy. The infrastructure is primitive so it's not cost effective
to try to take whatever natural resources they may have, if any, so there's nothing they have
that we want. The Taliban were not "ousted". In the face of massive firepower they split up
and scattered; they're still there. After all, the US has been negotiating with them for a
peace deal of some sort hasn't it? "Democracy crusades" is just a propaganda fig leaf to
bamboozle stupid Americans. It's amazing that there's people who actually believe stuff like
that but PT Barnum had it right. "Eventually, we give up and go home". That's because they
live there and we don't. "They apparently have an inexhaustible supply of volunteers" willing
to fight and die. They don't want foreign robo-soldiers pointing guns at them in their own
country. We have our own version, it's called "Remember the Alamo", men who stood their
ground against the odds.
If a country is not willing to do that, and I would hope the United States is not
willing to do that, then they (we) should go home and leave the Afghans to murder each
other without our assistance. If they return to supporting terrorism or go whole hog in
producing opium, perhaps the US should decapitate their entire government and let the next
batch of losers give governing a try. I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude
to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."
The growth in opium cultivation correlates with CIA activities in the area and the $3
billion from American taxpayers which financed Mujahideen 'terrorism' against the Russians
and their local proxies just to avenge the fall of Saigon.
In 1980 Afghanistan accounted for about only 5% of total world heroin production. This was
mainly for the local market and neighbor Iran.
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
ours.
If I may..
another way of looking at this, and I feel a profound respect for the Afghans, and only
wish we were made of the same mettle. If only ((they)) could say of us..
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
(((ours)))).
They are not trying to change ((((us. We))) are trying to change them. And they wish to
remain who they are.
IOW, we white Westerners, have proved willing to surrender and submit to all of it.
Without nary a peep of protest. Even as ((they)) send us around the globe to kill people like
these Afghans, for being slightly inconvenient to their agenda. [And so the CIA can
reconstitute its global heroin trafficking operation$.]
If only history would look back on this epic moment, at the last Death throes of the West,
and say of whitey, that he refused to surrender his values and faith and traditions and tribe
and God, and culture and civilization and honor.. to ((those)) who would pervert his values,
and mock his faith, and trash his traditions, and exterminate his tribe, while mocking his
God, and poisoning his culture, and destroying his civilization and all because at the end of
the day, he had no honor.
These men may be backwater, illiterate villagers,
but at least they have enough mettle and honor, to tell the Beast that they would rather
die killing as many of the Beast's stupid goons as they're able, than ever sacrifice their
sacred honor- or lands or sovereignty, or the destinies of their children – over to the
fiend, which is more than I can say for Western "man".
They are not trying to change us. We are trying to change them. And they wish to remain
who they are.
Would that the Swedish people had a Nano-shred of the blood-honor of an Afghan, Barbara
Spectre would be pounding sand.
Historically, the Afghans are fundamentalist, tribal and impervious to foreign
intervention.
Obviously, there is a great deal we need to learn from them.
What will the Taliban do when we leave?
They will not give up their dream of again ruling the Afghan nation and people. And they
will fight until they have achieved that goal and their idea of victory: dominance.
Um.. Pat. Whose land is it anyways? Is it such a horror that Afghans should be
dominant in Afghanistan ?
The Taliban was welcomed into most of the regions it governed, because they drove out
local war lords who often treated the villager's children as their sex toys, and the foreign
(CIA) opioid growers and traffickers. And it was the Taliban that put an end to all of that.
They're harsh, but they're effective, and that is their land, not ours.
Also, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden, if the West could provide a shred
of proof that he had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. (he didn't ; ) But the West had
zero proof, (as the FBI admits to this day), that they have zero proof that ties Bin Laden to
9/11.
And n0w that we all know 9/11 was an Israeli false flag, intended to use the American
military as their bitch, to burn down 'seven nations in five years' .. that the Jewish
supremacists wanted destroyed, our whole pretext for being over there has been a sham from
day one. Duh.
.
.
.
.
I remember long ago when I had a subscription to National Geographic and this photo came out,
I cut the picture out, and stuck it somewhere to look at- it was so visceral and
haunting.
Leave them alone. I don't care how many Jews at the WSJ demand whitey has to stay and die
for Israel. (Afghanistan is on Iran's border, and that's why we have to stay, to menace all
those anti-Semites over there, trying to gas all the Jews and make soap).
@paranoid
goy I very much doubt if many are joining the military to "defend the American Dream."
Most are more practical and are joining to escape poverty, even if it might cost them their
lives. Recruiters will now be inundated with volunteers since there are no jobs in the covid
depression.
If the neo-con clown car Trump has permitted to run foreign policy since his election gets us
into a war with Iran and/or Venezuela before November, will Pat still be stumping for him, or
will we see the return of non-election-year Pat?
Excellent question Pat! Unfortunately there is no answer, we've been at "forever war"
seemingly forever, and the whole point as Eisenhower so preciently warned us is THE
objective.
The thing is that the Afghan government wasn't supporting terrorism. Rather, it had no
on-going control anywhere except the cities, which made the tribal areas useful hideouts /
bases for a raft of groups.
I well remember the prelude to the invasion where the US was demanding that its government
(which merely happened to be Taliban that year) hand over OBL in 72hrs. The truth was that
the US knew Afghanistan didn't have the capability to do that and it merely wanted to use OBL
as an excuse to invade and continue the encirclement of the old soviet states.
In the weeks before the 2016
presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect
Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published a
full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed “Putin ha[s] recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation,” while George W. Bush’s post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing in
the Washington Post, refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by accusing Trump of being a “useful fool,
some naif, manipulated by Moscow” and sounding “a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist.” Meanwhile, the intelligence community
under James Clapper and John Brennan fed
morsels to both the Obama DOJ and the US media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became the Russiagate
investigation.
In his extraordinary election-advocating Op-Ed, Gen. Hayden, Bush/Cheney’s CIA Chief, candidly explained the reasons for the
CIA’s antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate’s stated opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to
expand as well as his opposition to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly “pro-Putin” positions
which, we are now all supposed
to forget, Obamalargely
shared).
As has been true since President Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA after World War II, interfering in other countries and
dictating or changing their governments — through campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the
abolition of democracy, systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots — is regarded as a divine right, inherent
to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump
was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA’s antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the primary
vector for anonymous, illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure
the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at least the first two years of Trump’s presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate
conspiracy theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the president-elect and the agency to
the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was
risking full-on subversion of his presidency by the agency:
Democrats, early in Trump’s presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump’s most devoted enemies, and thus began
viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign
policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal
celebrities by being hired
by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded
as news.
Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the US" opened up my eyes to how shameful our
history really is. The American Empire is no better then Great Britain, the very power this
country was supposed to rise above.
When a system is fully controlled by the big corporation/money every action and move must
serve it's master. Some are directly related to their immediate interest and some to prevent
any future challenge to it.
"...At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA, as a matter of fact, by the time I became
the head of the news and public affairs division in 1954 shifts had been established ... I
was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them...." -- Sid Mickelson, CBS News
President 1954-61, describing Operation Mockingbird
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins, was a NYTimes best-seller about the
methods CIA use to dominate countries in Latin America and in Asia. John Perkins never was
interviewed by Us Media.
"... Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news . ..."
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ). As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World
War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through
campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy,
systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right,
inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks
to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA's antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the
primary vector for anonymous illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent
and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at
least the first two years of Trump's presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy
theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the
president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on
subversion of his presidency by the agency:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of
Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading
out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to
create new
foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish
confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security
officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being
hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a
virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news .
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor . The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic
American exceptionalism necessary to believe this is impossible to describe. Compared to what
the CIA has done to dozens of other countries since the end of World War II, and what it
continues to do , watching Americans cast Russian interference in the 2016 election through
online bots and email hacking (even if one believes every claim made about it) as some sort of
unique and unprecedented crime against democracy is staggering. Set against what the CIA has
done and continues to do to "interfere" in the domestic affairs of other countries --
including Russia -- the 2016
election was, at most, par for the course for international affairs and, more accurately, a
trivial and ordinary act in the context of CIA interference. This propaganda was sustainable
because the recent history and the current function of the CIA has largely been
suppressed. Thankfully, a just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who
spent years as a foreign correspondent covering two countries still marred by brutal
CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post --
provides one of the best, most informative and most illuminating histories yet of this agency
and the way it has shaped the actual, rather than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the
world.
Entitled "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program
that Shaped Our World," the book primarily documents the indescribably horrific campaigns of
mass murder and genocide the CIA sponsored in Indonesia as an instrument for destroying a
nonaligned movement of nations who would be loyal to neither Washington nor Moscow. Critically,
Bevins documents how the chilling success of that morally grotesque campaign led to its being
barely discussed in U.S. discourse, but then also serving as the foundation and model for
clandestine CIA interference campaigns in multiple other countries from Guatemala, Chile, and
Brazil to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Central America: the Jakarta Method.
Our newest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, which debuts today at 2:00 p.m. on The Intercept's YouTube channel , is
devoted to a discussion of why this history is so vital: not just for understanding the current
international political order but also for distinguishing between fact and fiction in our
contemporary political discourse. In addition to my own observations on this topic, I speak to
Bevins about his book, about what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still
inhabit, and why a genuine understanding of both international and domestic politics is
impossible without a clear grasp on this story.
"... Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest. ..."
Interesting comparison between the aspirations of De Gaulle and Putin.
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history
that was past. His policy was to foster friendly relations on equal terms with all parts of
the world, regardless of ideological differences. I think that Putin's concept of a
multipolar world is similar. It is clearly a concept that horrifies the exceptionalists."
Agree with Johnstone.
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:55
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in
history that was past. "
Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment
of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain
qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of
local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest.
The exceptions to such strategies lay within constructs of settler colonialism which were
addressed primarily through warfare – "The United States of America",
Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola refer –
to facilitate such future strategies.
"I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar."
As outlined elsewhere the concept of a multi-polar world is not synonymous with the
concept of colonialism except for the colonialists who consistently seek to encourage such
conflation through myths of we-are-all-in-this-togetherness.
"History," they say, "is written by the winners." But if you want to get at the fundamental
flaw, remove the last three words and you have it: "History is written."
Events cannot be
written, they can only be lived.
Just as a sun in a picture cannot give heat or light. The
problem is that those who live history seldom speak of it, it's much too traumatic for them.
And those who speak voluminously of it most likely did not live it.
kenny gordon ,
Nice comment, Howard.
When my Father [Royal Artillery] was told to stop fighting against my
Father-in-Law [Waffen SS], he was sent off to fight against MOSSAD in Palestine he witnessed
the brutal treatment handed out to the "indigenous people" and was very reluctant to talk
about his experience.. "By way of deception thou shalt do war"..!
"... A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ..."
"... "the right to plunder anything one can get their hands on" ..."
"... "the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi" ..."
n 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his
first term as Prime Minister of Israel, as a how-to manual on approaching regime change in the
Middle East and for the destruction of the Oslo Accords.
The "Clean Break" policy document outlined these goals:
Ending Yasser Arafat's and the
Palestinian Authority's political influence, by blaming them for acts of Palestinian terrorism
Inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Launching war against
Syria after Saddam's regime is disposed of. Followed by military action against Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and Egypt.
"Clean Break" was also in direct opposition to the Oslo Accords, to which Netanyahu was very
much itching to obliterate. The Oslo II Accord was signed just the year before, on September
28th 1995, in Taba, Egypt.
During the Oslo Accord peace process, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin's
government of being "removed from Jewish tradition and Jewish values." Rallies organised by the
Likud and other right-wing fundamentalist groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS
uniform or in the crosshairs of a gun.
In July 1995, Netanyahu went so far as to lead a mock funeral procession for Rabin,
featuring a coffin and hangman's noose.
The Oslo Accords was the initiation of a process which was to lead to a peace treaty based
on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and at fulfilling the "right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination." If such a peace treaty were to occur, with the
United States backing, it would have prevented much of the mayhem that has occurred since.
However, the central person to ensuring this process, Yitzak Rabin, was assassinated just a
month and a half after the signing of the Oslo II Accord, on November 4th, 1995. Netanyahu
became prime minister of Israel seven months later. "Clean Break" was produced the following
year.
On November 6th, 2000 in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin,
who was the chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords, warned those Israelis who argued that
it was impossible to make peace with the Palestinians:
Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism, and not in
order to offer them a Jewish Sparta or – God forbid – a new Massada."
On Oct. 5, 2003, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against
Syria, targeting a purported "Palestinian terrorist camp" inside Syrian territory. Washington
stood by and did nothing to prevent further escalation.
"Clean Break" was officially launched in March 2003 with the war against Iraq, under the
pretence of "The War on Terror". The real agenda was a western-backed list of regime changes in
the Middle East to fit the plans of the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Israel.
However, the affair is much more complicated than that with each player holding their own
"idea" of what the "plan" is. Before we can fully appreciate such a scope, we must first
understand what was Sykes-Picot and how did it shape today's world mayhem.
Arabian
Nights
WWI was to officially start July 28th 1914, almost immediately following the Balkan wars
(1912-1913) which had greatly weakened the Ottoman Empire.
Never one to miss an opportunity when smelling fresh blood, the British were very keen on
acquiring what they saw as strategic territories for the taking under the justification of
being in war-time, which in the language of geopolitics translates to "the right to plunder
anything one can get their hands on" .
The brilliance of Britain's plan to garner these new territories was not to fight the
Ottoman Empire directly but rather, to invoke an internal rebellion from within. These Arab
territories would be encouraged by Britain to rebel for their independence from the Ottoman
Empire and that Britain would support them in this cause.
These Arab territories were thus led to believe that they were fighting for their own
freedom when, in fact, they were fighting for British and secondarily French colonial
interests.
In order for all Arab leaders to sign on to the idea of rebelling against the Ottoman
Sultan, there needed to be a viable leader that was Arab, for they certainly would not agree to
rebel at the behest of Britain.
Lord Kitchener, the butcher of Sudan, was to be at the helm of this operation as Britain's
Minister of War. Kitchener's choice for Arab leadership was the scion of the Hashemite dynasty,
Hussein ibn Ali, known as the Sherif of Mecca who ruled the region of Hejaz under the Ottoman
Sultan.
Hardinge of the British India Office disagreed with this choice and wanted Wahhabite
Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud instead, however, Lord Kitchener overruled this stating that their
intelligence revealed that more Arabs would follow Hussein.
Since the Young Turk Revolution which seized power of the Ottoman government in 1908,
Hussein was very aware that his dynasty was in no way guaranteed and thus he was open to
Britain's invitation to crown him King of the Arab kingdom.
Kitchener wrote to one of Hussein's sons, Abdallah, as reassurance of Britain's support:
If the Arab nation assist England in this war that has been forced upon us by Turkey,
England will guarantee that no internal intervention take place in Arabia, and will give
Arabs every assistance against foreign aggression."
Sir Henry McMahon who was the British High Commissioner to Egypt, would have several
correspondences with Sherif Hussein between July 1915 to March 1916 to convince Hussein to
lead the rebellion for the "independence" of the Arab states.
However, in a private letter to India's Viceroy Charles Hardinge sent on December 4th, 1915,
McMahon expressed a rather different view of what the future of Arabia would be, contrary to
what he had led Sherif Hussein to believe:
[I do not take] the idea of a future strong united independent Arab State too seriously
the conditions of Arabia do not and will not for a very long time to come, lend themselves to
such a thing."
Such a view meant that Arabia would be subject to Britain's heavy-handed "advising" in all
its affairs, whether it sought it or not.
In the meantime, Sherif Hussein was receiving dispatches issued by the British Cairo office
to the effect that the Arabs of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) would be given
independence guaranteed by Britain, if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire.
The French were understandably suspicious of Britain's plans for these Arab territories. The
French viewed Palestine, Lebanon and Syria as intrinsically belonging to France, based on
French conquests during the Crusades and their "protection" of the Catholic populations in the
region.
Hussein was adamant that Beirut and Aleppo were to be given independence and completely
rejected French presence in Arabia. Britain was also not content to give the French all the
concessions they demanded as their "intrinsic" colonial rights.
Enter Sykes and Picot.
... ... ...
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in
Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until
diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire.
In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that
Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it
necessary to partition the land.
The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel's "prescription" and the revolt broke out again. This
time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the
British armed forces and police. Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved
the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.
In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which
stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.
Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was
organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and
adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947.
Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after
the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.
A New Strategy for
Securing Whose Realm?
Despite what its title would have you believe, "Clean Break" is neither a "new strategy" nor
meant for "securing" anything. It is also not the brainchild of fanatical neo-conservatives:
Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, nor even that of crazed end-of-days fundamentalist Benjamin
Netanyahu, but rather has the very distinct and lingering odour of the British Empire.
"Clean Break" is a continuation of Britain's geopolitical game, and just as it used France
during the Sykes-Picot days it is using the United States and Israel.
The role Israel has found itself playing in the Middle East could not exist if it were not
for over 30 years of direct British occupation in Palestine and its direct responsibility for
the construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which set a course for destruction and
endless war in this region long before Israel ever existed.
It was also Britain who officially launched operation "Clean Break" by directly and
fraudulently instigating an illegal war against Iraq to which the
Chilcot Inquiry, aka Iraq Inquiry , released 7 years later, attests to.
This was done by the dubious
reporting by British Intelligence setting the pretext for the U.S.' ultimate invasion into
Iraq based off of fraudulent and forged evidence provided by GCHQ, unleashing the "War on
Terror", aka "Clean Break" outline for regime change in the Middle East.
In addition, the Libyan invasion in 2011 was also found to be unlawfully instigated by
Britain.
In a report
published by the British Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2016, it was concluded that
it was "the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an
intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi" .
The report concluded that the Libyan intervention was based on false pretence provided by
British Intelligence and recklessly promoted by the British government.
If this were not enough, British Intelligence has also been caught behind the orchestrations
of
Russia-Gate and the Skripal affair .
Therefore, though the U.S. and Israeli military have done a good job at stealing the show,
and though they certainly believe themselves to be the head of the show, the reality is that
this age of empire is distinctly British and anyone who plays into this game will ultimately be
playing for said interests, whether they are aware of it or not.
Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism
Ever heard of Dumbo? He's a flying elephant.
The crusade in the ME will continue, with Israel the top dog until America's military
support is no longer there. Even without the Israeli eastern european invaders, the area is
primed for perpetual tribal warfare because the masses are driven by tribalist doctrines and
warped metaphysics dictated by insane and inhumane parasites (priests). It is the epicenter
of a spiritual plague that has infected most of the planet.
paul ,
There is complete continuity between the activities of Zionist controlled western countries
and those of the present day.
In the 1930s, there were about 300,000 adult Palestinian males. Over 10% were killed,
imprisoned and tortured or driven into exile. 100,000 British troops were sent to Palestine
to destroy completely Palestinian political and military organisations. Wingate set up the
Jew terror gangs who were given free rein to murder, rape and burn, in preparation for the
complete ethnic cleansing of the country.
We see the same ruthless, genocidal brutality on an even greater scale in the present day,
serving exactly the same interests. Nothing has ever come of trying to negotiate with the
Zionists and their western stooges – just further disasters. It is only resolute and
uncompromising resistance that has ever achieved anything. Hezbollah kicking their Zionist
arses out of Lebanon in 2000 and keeping them out in 2006. Had they not done so, Lebanon
would still be under Zionist occupation and covered with their filthy illegal
settlements.
They have never stopped and they never will. The objective is to create a vast Zionist
empire comprising the whole of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and parts of Egypt,
Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. This plan has never changed and it never will. The Zionist
thieves will shortly steal what little is left of Palestine. But the thieving will not end
there. It will just move on to neighbouring countries.
The prime reason they have been able to get away with this is not their control of British
and US golems. It is by playing the old, dirty colonial games of divide and rule, with the
Quisling stooge dictators serving their interests. They have always been able to set Sunni
against Shia, and different factions against others. The dumb Arabs fall for it every time.
Their latest intrigues are directed at the destruction of Iran, the next victim on their
target list after Iraq, Libya and Syria. And the Quisling dictators of Saudi Arabia are
openly agitating for this and offering to pay for all of it. Syria sent troops to join the US
invasion of Iraq in 1991, though Iraqi troops fought and died in Syria in 1973 against
Israel. Egypt allows Israel to use its airspace to carry out the genocidal terror bombing of
Gaza.
All this is contemptible enough and fits into racist stereotypes of Arabs as stupid,
irrational, corrupt, easily bought, violent and treacherous. This of course does not apply to
the populations of those countries, but it is a legitimate assessment of their Quisling
dictators, with a (very) few honourable exceptions.
Seamus Padraig ,
Of course, Arab rulers who don't tow the Zionist line generally get overthrown,
don't they? And that usually requires the efforts/intervention of FUKUS, doesn't it? So you
can't really pretend that 'Arab stupidity' is the main factor.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The fact that, as the Yesha Council of Rabbis and Torah Sages declared in 2006, as Israel was
bombing Lebanon 'back to the Stone Age', under Talmudic Judaism, killing civilians is not
just permissible, but a mitzvah, or good deed, explains Zionist behaviour. Other doctrines
allow an entire 'city' eg Gaza, to be devastated for the 'crimes' of a few, and children,
even babies, to be killed if they would grow up to 'oppose the Jews'. Dare mention these
FACTS, seen everyday in Israeli barbarity, and the 'antisemitism' slurs flow, as ever.
Julia ,
" is that this age of empire is distinctly British"
.it takes some balls to make such an absurd statement and still expect to be taken
seriously. The US of course with its 800 military bases around the world and gifts of 40
billion a year to Israel has no opinion on the future of the Middle East. You would have us
believe that they are just humble onlookers, as a small bankrupt country tells them what to
do. We are being told that the CIA, the most formidable spy agency and manipulator of
countries in history, sits quietly by as the British and Israel tells the US what to do.
Absurd isn't it., Clearly the truth is that Israel is just another military base for the US
in the Middle East, easily the most important geopolitical region in the world. They fund it,
arm it, and protect it from all attacks, Israel does as it is told by the US for the most
part despite the pantomime on the surface.
Many on the far right like to hide US interests behind a wall of antisemitism that likes to
paint 'the jews' as an all powerful enemy but this is just cover for Israel's real
geopolitical roll as a US puppet.
Time and time again all we are seeing is attempt to write the US, the largest empire in the
history out of the news and out of the history books, like it is some invisible benign force
that has not interests, no control and does noting to forward it's interests and it's
empire.
''To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
criticise."
I don't know about you, but I'm not 10 years old and I know I am looking at Empire and
it's power being flexed every day in every part do the world, especial in the parts of the
world that it funds with trillions of dollars.
Julia ,
" is that this age of empire is distinctly British"
.it takes some balls to make such an absurd statement and still expect to be taken
seriously. The US of course with its 800 military bases around the world and gifts of 40
billion a year to Israel has no opinion on the future of the Middle East. You would have us
believe that they are just humble onlookers, as a small bankrupt country tells them what to
do. We are being told that the CIA, the most formidable spy agency and manipulator of
countries in history, sits quietly by as the British and Israel tells the US what to do.
Absurd isn't it., Clearly the truth is that Israel is just another military base for the US
in the Middle East, easily the most important geopolitical region in the world. They fund it,
arm it, and protect it from all attacks, Israel does as it is told by the US for the most
part despite the pantomime on the surface.
Many on the far right like to hide US interests behind a wall of antisemitism that likes to
paint 'the jews' as an all powerful enemy but this is just cover for Israel's real
geopolitical roll as a US puppet.
Time and time again all we are seeing is attempt to write the US, the largest empire in the
history out of the news and out of the history books, like it is some invisible benign force
that has not interests, no control and does noting to forward it's interests and it's
empire.
''To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
criticise."
I don't know about you, but I'm not 10 years old and I know I am looking at Empire and
it's power being flexed every day in every part do the world, especial in the parts of the
world that it funds with trillions of dollars.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The antithesis of the truth. It is US politicians who flock to AIPAC's meeting every year to
pledge UNDYING fealty to Israel, not Israeli politicians pledging loyalty to the USA. It is
Israeli and dual loyalty Jewish oligarchs funding BOTH US parties, it is US politicians
throwing themselves to the ground in adulation when Bibi the war criminal addresses the
Congress with undisguised contempt, not Israeli politicians groveling to the USA. The
master-servant relationship is undisguised.
Pyewacket ,
In Daniel Yergin's The Prize, a history of the Oil industry, he provides another interesting
angle to explain British interest in the region. He states that at that time, Churchill
realised that a fighting Navy powered by Coal, was not nearly as good or efficient as one
using Oil as a fuel, and that securing supplies of the stuff was the best way forward to
protect the Empire.
BigB ,
Yergin would be right. The precursor of the First World War was a technological arms race and
accelerated 'scientific' perfection of arsenals – particularly naval – in the
service of imperialism. British and German imperialism. The full story involves the Berlin to
Cairo railway and the resource grab that went with it. I'm a bit sketchy on the details now:
but Churchill had a prominent role, rising to First Lord of the Admiralty.
Docherty and Macgregor have exposed the hidden history. F W Engdahl has written about WW1
being the first oil war.
In 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu
No source link for this!
By the way 1996 was during the Clinton administration. Warren Christopher was secretary of
state and John Deutch was the Director of Central Intelligence . George Tenet was appointed
the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in July 1995. After John Deutch's abrupt
resignation in December 1996, Tenet served as acting director.
Antsie, what are you going to deny next? The USS Liberty? Deir Yassin? The Lavon Affair?
Sabra, Shatilla? Qana (twice)? The Five Celebrating Israelis on 9/11?Does not impress.
During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another
perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin.
1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of
neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy
that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate,
America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here,
infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way
of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an
enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could
not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.
The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different
perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had
been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the
US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats,
commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul.
Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from
America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and
priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the
Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical
Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western
sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia.
Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's
leadership and high level of domestic support. 4
Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party
nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised
candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman,
referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political
credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former
ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had
attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan
divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was
likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to
a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York
Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war
on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of
Donald Trump." 7
The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The
leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on
behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia
and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on
Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's
control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are
also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country,
not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be
a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column
titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the
Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an
investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election
campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane
'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and
retweeted the message. 11
To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and
his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the
press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who
was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of
the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia
as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the
administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in
elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call.
12
In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to
produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with
members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration.
It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence
officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American
social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining
outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel
Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016
presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March
12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen
any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation,
announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15
Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely
reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of
his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia
as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it
clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms.
17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the
Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two
sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize
relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with
Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and
cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US
history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in
Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the
State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that
of a hawk, including on Russia. 20
Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the
Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the
alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of
American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's
most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking
networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media
commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and
counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to
interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own
presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime."
22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging
President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past
time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders. Opposition to the
"Collusion" Narrative
In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative,
libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to
the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant
evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.
The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented
Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships
with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued
that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military
and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal
media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote
that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much
more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such
Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of
bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to
"derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and
smear campaigns. 25
Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a
dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend
Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National
Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's
"feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with
Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75%
approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by
the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and
nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they
shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and
globalization. 30
Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary
Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving
and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in
that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to
Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that,
overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby
endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine,
appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy
positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian
business with ties to the Kremlin. 34
The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by
Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the
Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as
infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an
interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain
anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the
election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more
than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and
the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda
Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as
Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be
vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of
(p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators --
reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day."
36
However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the
New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's
"laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably
united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed
that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with
Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian
Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's
meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and
that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40Explaining Russophobia
The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of
previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or
by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization
and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.
The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in
its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence
prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United
States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the
world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of
2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no
longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to
world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following
presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly
divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political
polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October
2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a
major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44
During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate
differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were
never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of
extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump
positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain
the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the
Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting
Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.
The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it
became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the
cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened
retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national
security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public
attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional
correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand
missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and
political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of
hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with
assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She
questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for
President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly
attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48
Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since
roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an
oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses.
Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin
as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent
and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a
"regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out
of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should
challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from
power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to
Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.
Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking
the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's
victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In
February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State
Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner
circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the
Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But
what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and
said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .'
A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it
is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White
House." 52
In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some
Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who
viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's
an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged
interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some
quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the
Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55
Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed
to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the
media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93)
Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a
leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian
officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57
There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and
emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and
anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve
relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal
media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal
elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the
general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the
public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War
developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these
memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the
public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense
of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an
independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and
frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new
"suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.
This period is the period when the CIA gradually became a political
force able and willing to act acted on its own initiative. Which culminated in the assassination of JFK.
Notable quotes:
"... When I say 'they' I mean the Military Industrial Complex. I have no doubt that John Kennedy was stabbed in the back by treasonous elements within his own country. It's hard for me to tell how extensive this conspiracy really went and into what areas of the Military Industrial Complex. The CIA and the Joint Chiefs Of Staff are on the suspect list though. There was no love lost between President Kennedy and the military and intelligence establishments. Mr. Swanson tells how Robert Kennedy was concerned that the military brass might kill his brother during the ominous Cuban Missile Crisis. ..."
"... And as a consumer of what must be in excess of 3-400 books on this subject, I can say this is quite simply the best one-volume analysis of U.S. defense policy 1945 - 1964 that has been produced. ..."
"... While Preparata's Conjuring Hitler presents Montagu Norman and Bank of England as financing the rise of the Third Reich as the initiation of the modern military-intelligence age, and Stephen Kinzer's The Brothers introduces Dulles & Dulles as the twin inventors of America's role as stage manager, Michael Swanson raises the curtain on Eisenhower's finale, the introduction of the Colossus astride Washington ..."
"... David Martin's signal work uncovering the termination of the first Secretary of Defense James Forrestal for resisting the Truman-Marshall military steroid injection, itself inextricably entwined with the Acheson-enabled Korean War. ..."
"... The National Security Act of 1947 and its follow-on codas, the 1948 plausible deniability agreement and 1949 amendments, lead to the SAC/ICBM buildup, the preamble to Northwoods and the dream of a first strike. ..."
Today when you factor in the interest on the national debt from past wars and total defense expenditures the United States spends
almost 40% of its federal budget on the military. It accounts for over 46% of total world arms spending. Before World War II it spent
almost nothing on defense and hardly anyone paid any income taxes. You can't have big wars without big government. Such big expenditures
are now threatening to harm the national economy. How did this situation come to be?
In this book you'll learn how in the critical twenty years after World War II the United States changed from being a continental
democratic republic to a global imperial superpower. Since then nothing has ever been the same again. In this book you will discover
this secret history of the United States that formed the basis of the world we live in today.
By buying this book you will discover:
- How the end of European colonialism created a power vacuum that the United States used to create a new type of world empire
backed by the most powerful military force in human history.
- Why the Central Intelligence Agency was created and used to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations when the
United States Constitution had no mechanism for such imperial activities.
- How national security bureaucrats got President Harry Truman to approve of a new wild budget busting arms race after World
War II that is still going on to this day.
- Why President Eisenhower really gave his famous warning against the "military-industrial complex."
- Why during the Kennedy administration the nuclear arms race almost led to the end of the world during the Cuban Missile
Crisis.
- How President Kennedy tried to deal with what had grown into a "permanent government" of power elite national security bureaucrats
in the executive branch of the federal government that had become more powerful than the individual president himself.
In this book you will discover this secret history of the United States that formed the basis of the world we live in today.
This book provides a good overview of the so called Cold War I thought.
I read this book as part of my ongoing research about the assassination of President Kennedy. At this point in my research
I need to move past the nuts and bolts of the assassination like how many times JFK was shot and things like that. Those aren't
the most important questions. The important issues are who wanted John Kennedy dead and why and how were they able to do something
like that. There had to be some major reasons why they would commit such a monumental crime. And those reasons are revealed in
books like this somewhere.
When I say 'they' I mean the Military Industrial Complex. I have no doubt that John Kennedy was stabbed in the back by
treasonous elements within his own country. It's hard for me to tell how extensive this conspiracy really went and into what areas
of the Military Industrial Complex. The CIA and the Joint Chiefs Of Staff are on the suspect list though. There was no love lost
between President Kennedy and the military and intelligence establishments. Mr. Swanson tells how Robert Kennedy was concerned
that the military brass might kill his brother during the ominous Cuban Missile Crisis.
Some of those generals like Curtis 'Bombs Away' Lemay lost their marbles during World II I think. Lemay didn't seem to understand
what nuclear weapons really are. Lemay seemed to speak about the use of nuclear weapons in World War II terms like they were just
another type of bomb.
Near the end of the book Mr. Swanson mentions some things Jackie Kennedy said her husband John was planning to do:
Attend a peace summit in Moscow.
Remove J. Edgar Hoover as the director of the FBI.
Replace Dean Rusk in the State Department.
Get control of the government's policy in Vietnam.
That list right there is an excellent starting point for understanding some of the many reasons why the War State wanted John
Kennedy dead.
Mr. Swanson talks about an important government directive called NSC-68. This National Security Council directive labelled
any country that refused to bow to the will of the United States a communist sympathizer. And any country that got on that list
was then subject to the CIA's evil machinations.
Some authors such as the great Fletcher Prouty felt the entire Cold War was a myth that was fabricated by the War State to
justify their own existence.
For me the assassination of President Kennedy and the quagmire in Vietnam confirm that hypothesis. Those are two historical
realities which indicate that the War State had flown off the rails.
Having studied this period of history for over 45 years, as a history major in exactly this subject at University.
And as a consumer of what must be in excess of 3-400 books on this subject, I can say this is quite simply the best one-volume
analysis of U.S. defense policy 1945 - 1964 that has been produced.
The bulk of it presents facts known to students of the
period, plus certain additional lesser-known facts revealed by recent declassifications in both the US and Russia.
However, it re-analyzes these facts to produce a masterful synthesis more clearly stated here than I have seen in any other
volume.
The only complaint is that the book should be more fully footnoted -- not only to source some of the factual statements, but
also to explain the author's chain of reasoning from the source to the statement -- as well as be re-published with a proper index
and bibliography. In a sense, the author has under-rated himself. Properly footnoted and indexed, this would be not merely an
excellent popular read but a work of scholarship with which students of the field would have to reckon from now on.
How the US came to be influenced by the military-industrial complex
This book is a pretty well done tome about how the military-industrial complex came to be. The overall layout is much like
a history book but if the reader is patient it begins to unfold with some level of comfort after a few dozen pages. The properly
told story is long overdue and it probably will not have wide acceptance but that is the overall sign of our times. The author
does not go into enough detail to tie in today's US government administration and how deep the corruption has grown.
If you wish to be an informed voter or just a more informed citizen, reading such books as this one will help bring you around
to becoming a bit better enlightened. Read, recognize, respond. All comes in time.
Michael Swanson's The War State is a keystone work in understanding modern America's lone superpower position.
While Preparata's Conjuring Hitler presents Montagu Norman and Bank of England as financing the rise of the Third Reich
as the initiation of the modern military-intelligence age, and Stephen Kinzer's The Brothers introduces Dulles & Dulles as the
twin inventors of America's role as stage manager, Michael Swanson raises the curtain on Eisenhower's finale, the introduction
of the Colossus astride Washington
.
The War State punctuates Robert Wilcox' Target: Patton, the removal of the threat of premature end to the Cold War, and
David Martin's signal work uncovering the termination of the first Secretary of Defense James Forrestal for resisting the Truman-Marshall
military steroid injection, itself inextricably entwined with the Acheson-enabled Korean War.
The National Security Act of 1947 and its follow-on codas, the 1948 plausible deniability agreement and 1949 amendments,
lead to the SAC/ICBM buildup, the preamble to Northwoods and the dream of a first strike.
The Vietnam War fought over the dead body of the thirty-fifth president is examined in John Newman's two editions of JFK and
Vietnam, and the sequence of subsequent research works, all adding to Douglas Horne's view of JFK's War with the National Security
Establishment, as well as James Douglass' eerie scene through a glass darkly, JFK and the Unspeakable.
We are gifted with Michael Swanson's concise and unitized depiction of the threat President Eisenhower succeeded in naming
January 1961 despite repeated attempts to airbrush the indictment from history.
Why are we faced with unending war in Afghanistan against a shadowy enemy first introduced by April Glaspy's invitation to
Saddam Hussein echoing Acheson's omission of Korea in the January 1950 Press Club speech?
Why do towers fall in unprecedented fashion defying laws of physics?
As Litvinenko and Felshtinsky's Blowing Up Russia reveals Putin as the rebranding mastermind of Golitsyn and Bezemov, and Xi
Jinping rides the dragon into the fifth millenium, Oceania's capital remains in the orbit of the Pentagon and Langley and the
constellation of corporations involved in Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett's Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson
Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil.
Michael Swanson pulls the construct from the mist and plants it front and center in the dramatic end of the Republic and the
bulletins from the frontlines of Big Brother's proxy wars in the nonaligned quadrangle.
It isn't personal -- it's business.
SkyNet and The Matrix and the gigantic digital nemeses of Person of Interest are mere terms of art.
The military-industrial complex is as real as LBJ's heart attack -- and exposed in The War State.
But if the Russians were coming, really, wouldn't most Americans rush to Putin's
assistance? And wouldn't that make America a vastly better place?
Not unique either! The Russians did that in the X Century when, as tradition and legend
has it, they invited the Varangians (Vikings) to come to rule over them because the
squabbling parties (presumably the local variety of Reps and Dems) made the place (Kiev-Rus)
ungovernable. About time they (the Russians) return the favour!
Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration
was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their
faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts
have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative
outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping
accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up.
Within a day, Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in
unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US
history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrAToZ, 1 minute ago
What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?
Kurpak, 27 seconds ago
Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...
It makes you look ******* insane.
iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)
(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless
herd of cattle, sub-human animals."
... ... ...
otschelnik, 35 minutes ago
Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who
has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us.
Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.
"Foglesong's book provides a panoramic view of American popular attitudes toward Russia, one that is illustrated with many
arresting cartoons and magazine covers. It should provoke a wider debate about the rationality of evaluating Russia with reference
to an idealized view of the United States, as well as the deeper sources of this tendency." -Deborah Welch Larson, H-Diplo
"In the 21st century, the American debate on the prospects of modernizing Russia and on the Americans' role in this process is
still going strong even though it began more than a century ago. This is why David Foglesong's book aimed at elucidating the
mechanisms of misrepresentations which threaten both Russian-American relations and the world security as a whole is of equal
importance for the academic community and for the policy makers in both Russia and the United States."
-Victoria Zhuravleva, H-Diplo
"Foglesong demonstrates that powerful Americans have again and again seen the possibility, even necessity, of spreading the word
to Russia, and then, when Russia fails to transform itself into something resembling the US, have recoiled and condemned Russia's perfidious
national character or its leaders-most recently Putin. The author's singular achievement is to show that well before the cold war, Russia
served as America's dark double, an object of wishful thinking, condescension and self-righteousness in a quest for American purpose-without
much to show for such efforts inside Russia. The author thereby places in context the cold war, when pamphleteers like William F Buckley
Jr and politicians like Ronald Reagan pushed a crusade to revitalise the American spirit. Russia then was a threat but also a means
to America's end (some fixed on a rollback of the alleged Soviet "spawn" inside the US-the welfare state-while others, after the Vietnam
debacle, wanted to restore "faith in the United States as a virtuous nation with a unique historical mission"). Foglesong's exposé of
Americans' "heady sense of their country's unique blessings" helps make sense of the giddiness, followed by rank disillusionment, vis-...-vis
the post-Soviet Russia of the 1990s and 2000s." -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine
Notable quotes:
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
"... The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea. ..."
"... This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags. ..."
"... T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil, precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror. ..."
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia had set up a historical pattern in which
missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans
as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair
during the collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War II, and during the dissolution
of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need to deflect attention away from America's
own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts
about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions
that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia,
more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting
what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American
journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have
distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip."
The Adventures of Straw Man Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2013 This has been the essential function of US
Russia policy, as David Foglesong shows in his century-long tour.
The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has
defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed
Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea.
This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps
the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags.
The crusade against US civil rights - of which Reagan was also a part in his early career - as Communist-inspired tinkering
with the Constitution was much less successful. His support for free trade unions in the Soviet Bloc while crushing them at home
underscored the irony.
But Foglesong is much too generous in evaluating Reagan's human decency as a policy motive. Reagan pursued his grand rollback
strategy by any means necessary, mixing hard tactics (contras, death-squad funding, mujahadin, Star Wars) with soft (democracy-enhancement,
human rights, meeting with Gorbachev). Solidarity activists in Poland might remember his crusading fondly; survivors of the Salvadoran
civil war will not.
The "crisis" with the Putin regime currently empowered shows the missionary impulse yet alive: projecting one's reforming instincts
upon others rather than at home. T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion
of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil,
precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror.
I do find it puzzling that Foglesong made no mention of Maurice Hindus, the prolific popular "explainer" of Russia in over
a dozen mid-century books; and the notorious defector Victor Kravchenko and his best-selling memoir of the 1940s (ghost-written
by Eugene Lyons, another popular anti-Soviet scribe). Both were much more influential in the public and political mind than many
of the more obscure missionary authors Foglesong does cite. Nevertheless, Foglesong has offered a generous helping of cultural/political
history that shows no signs of growing stale.
>
indah nuritasari , Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2012
This book tells a fascinating story of American efforts to liberate and remake Russia since the 1880s. It starts with the story
of Tsar Alexander II's asasination on March 1, 1881 and how James William Buel, a Missoury Journalist wrote it in his book "Russian
Nihilism and Exile Life in Siberia."
The story continues until The Reagan era and "the Evil Empire," 1981-1989.
This book is very interesting and useful for history lovers, students, journalists, or general public. Here you can find all
the "dark and exciting stuff" about the cold war, including the involvement of the journalists, political activists, diplomats,
and even engineers.
It is really helpful for me as a new immigrant in the US to help me understand the US position and role in the Cold War Era.
The language used in this book, though, is " kind of dry". A little editing for the next edition could be really helpful!!
It is not. Forces behind Russiagate are intact and still have the same agenda. CrowdStrike
was just a tool. As long as Full Spectrum Dominance dourine is alive, Russiagate will flourish in
one form or another
Notable quotes:
"... The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.") ..."
"... Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery. ..."
"... Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"? ..."
"... So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think. ..."
"... There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel. ..."
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
Seldom mentioned among the motives behind the persistent drumming on alleged Russian
interference was an over-arching need to help the Security State hide their tracks.
The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws
victory also played a role; as did the need for the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to
keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an
"aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now
disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.")
But that was then. This is now.
Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past
few weeks finally
collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no
evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set
a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that
there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that
supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after
the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery.
All that's left is to discover how this all happened.
Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr commissioned to
investigate this whole sordid mess seem intent on getting to the bottom of it. The possibility
that Trump will not chicken out this time, and rather will challenge the Security State looms
large since he felt personally under attack.
Writing on the Wall
Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their
tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example,
investigating a Mafia family.
Plus, former NSA Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers reportedly is cooperating. The
handwriting is on the wall. It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack
Obama may have played.
But former directors James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan, captains of Obama's
Security State, can take little solace from Barr's remarks Monday to a reporter who asked about
Trump's recent claims that top officials of the Obama administration, including the former
president had committed crimes. Barr replied:
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement,
based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a
criminal investigation of either man. Our concerns over potential criminality is focused on
others."
In a more ominous vein, Barr gratuitously added that law enforcement and intelligence
officials were involved in "a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against
the president. It was a grave injustice, and it was unprecedented in American history."
Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the
audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the
apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post
offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The
absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"?
The outrage voiced by the Post called to mind disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's indignant
response to criticism of the FBI by candidate Trump, in a Oct. 20, 2016 text exchange with FBI
attorney Lisa Page:
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent
answer.
Strzok -- I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY
Page -- I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Strzok -- Donald just said "bad hombres"
Strzok -- Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
Less vitriolic, but incisive commentary came from widely respected author and lawyer Glenn
Greenwald on May 14, four days after Trump coined "Obamagate": ( See "System Update with Glenn
Greenwald -- The Sham Prosecution of Michael Flynn").
For a shorter, equally instructive video of Greenwald on the broader issue of Russia-gate,
see this clip from a March 2019 Democracy Now! -sponsored debate he had with David Cay Johnston
titled, "As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs.
David Cay Johnston":
(The entire
debate is worth listening to). I found one of the comments below the Democracy Now! video
as big as a bummer as the commentator did:
"I think this is one of the most depressing parts about the whole situation. In their
dogmatic pushing for this false narrative, the Russiagaters might have guaranteed Trump a
second term. They have done more damage to our democracy than Russia ever has done and will
do ." (From "Clamity2007")
In any case, Johnston, undaunted by his embarrassment at the hands of Greenwald, is still at
it, and so is the avuncular Frank Rich -- both of them some 20 years older than Greenwald and
set in their evidence-impoverished, media-indoctrinated ways.
... ... ...
Uncle Frank, 40 seconds ago
So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these
'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think.
But when journalists are revealed to be issuing paid-for propaganda/lies mixed with their
own internal opinions, and their publisher allows it to be presented as if it were reporting
rather than opinion, said writers, editors, and publishers are relegated to obscurity and
derision.
Their work will never be taken seriously again by anyone who wasn't already
brain-washed.
They don't get that, I guess.
QABubba, 47 minutes ago (Edited)
There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the
beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not
going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for
destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the
CIA.
General Flynn was so involved with Turkey he should have been registered as a foreign
agent.
And as I have said before, the real crime was laundering Russian Mafia/Heroin money
through Deutsche Bank into New York real estate. It is curious that Turkey is also a huge
transport spot for heroin into the
EU. And France and other EU nations have a migrant population that lives off the drug
trade.
Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel.
The MSM disinformation campaign with consistent common talking points is not difficult to
see with a little discernment. The bigger question is has this happened organically or is there a larger agency
manipulating the public discourse?
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia
had set up a historical pattern in which missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be
followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October
Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a
violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair during the
collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War
II, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need
to deflect attention away from America's own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its
global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the
1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War,
revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong
illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward
Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and
America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark
double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what
they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and
emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about
Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted
American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their
grip."
Moribundus, 3 hours ago
America's imperialism rules: Never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame;
concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take
advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind.
Kidbuck, 5 hours ago
Trump hasn't engaged in a fight in his life. He's a sissy at heart wants to negotiate. He
can't even do that right. He's caved on nearly every campaign promise he made. The only thing
his administration fights for is their salary and their retirement. Hillary still waddles
free and farts in his general direction.
ChaoKrungThep, 4 hours ago
Trump the Mafia punk, like his dad, and draft dodger like his German grand dad. Barr, old
CIA asset from the Clinton-Mena coke smuggling op. This crappy crew is running their masters'
game in front of the redneck rabble who are dumber than their mutts.
Save_America1st, 9 hours ago
Geez...how far behind can most of these assholes be after all these years????
For one...there was no "Russia-gate". It was all a hoax from the beginning, and anyone
with a few functioning brain cells knew that from the start.
And as of about 3 years ago we have all known this as "Obamagate" for the most part...we
all knew the corruption of the hoax totally led up to O-Scumbag.
And now as of the recent disclosures it is a total fact.
Haven't most of you been watching Dan Bongino for over 2 years now and haven't you read
his books? Haven't you been reading Sarah Carter and John Soloman among others for nearly 3
years now???
Surely, you haven't been just sitting around sucking leftist media **** for over 3 years,
right???????? I'm sure you haven't.
So why is this article even necessary on ZeroHedge?????
We already knew and have known the truth since before even the 2016 election. Drop it.
Posa, 9 hours ago
So funny. The 85 Year old "American century' is palpably disintegrating before our very
eyes. In particular the Deep State permanent bureaucracy is completely untethered and facing
what seems to be a Great Reckoning in the form of Barr- Durham. Cognitve Derangement prevails
in the press and spills overto the body politic. The country teeters a slo-mo Civil War.
Meanwhile, The dollar is disintegrating and we seem to face an economic abyss, the Terminal
Depression. Real "last Days of Rome" stuff.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN, 5 hours ago (Edited)
The Israeli dual citizens like Adelson and Mercer bought the Presidency.
Mossad was the organization handling the mole Seth Rich.
Blaming Russia also worked for those 2 groups because it deflected attention away from
(((them))).
Ray McGovern, being ex-intel, must know this to be true.
LetThemEatRand, 11 hours ago
Russiagate. The supposed target of said coup d'etat just Presided over the largest bailout
of banks ever by a factor of five or more. Trump supporters are asleep for the bailout, Trump
haters are asleep for the bailout. Let's fight about transgender bathrooms and Russiagate,
shall we?
This is about intelligence agencies becaming a powerful by shadow political force, much like
STASI. This not about corruption per se, but about perusing of political goals by dirty means. So
it is closer to sedition then to corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work." ..."
"... there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas ..."
"... To begin with, cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents. ..."
"... But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage. ..."
"... Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally) should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S. government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the detainees at Guantanamo to find their treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people who are being censured in order to defend their right of free expression . ..."
"... As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny. That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning. ..."
Gen. Michael Flynn, President Obama's former director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency and President Donald Trump's former national security adviser,
pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017, to a single count of lying to the FBI about two
conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn served as a Trump
transition team official (Flynn was never
charged for any matters relating to his relationship with the Turkish government). As part
of the plea deal, special counsel Robert Mueller
recommended no jail time for Flynn , and the plea agreement also seemingly put an end to
threats from the Mueller team to prosecute Flynn's son.
Last Thursday, the Justice Department
filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly
discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of
Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to
leave the Bureau after
being caught lying to agents ), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That
motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from
the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing
maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories.
But the prosecution of Flynn -- for allegedly lying to the FBI when he denied in a January
24 interrogation that he had discussed with Kislyak on December 29 the new
sanctions and expulsions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration -- was always odd
for a number of reasons. To begin with, the FBI agents who questioned Flynn said afterward that
they did not believe he was lying (as
CNN reported in February 2017: "the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and
provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they
don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say"). For that reason, CNN
said, "the FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against" him.
More importantly, there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about
his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or
unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three
weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to
tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post
put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign
governments with whom they will soon have to work." What newly released documents over the
last month reveal is what has been generally evident for the last three years: The powers of
the security state agencies -- particularly the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DOJ -- were
systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than
legal ends.
While there was obviously deceit and corruption on the part of some Trump
officials in lying to Russiagate investigators and otherwise engaging in depressingly
common D.C. lobbyist corruption , there was also massive corruption on the part of the
investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and
prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and
personal vendettas . The former category (corruption by Trump officials) has received a
tidal wave of endless media attention, while the latter (corruption and abuse of power by those
investigating them) has received almost none.
For numerous reasons, it is vital to fully examine with as much clarity as possible the
abuse of power that drove the prosecution of Flynn. To begin with, cable and other news
outlets that employed
former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every
Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even
questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents.
More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats -- as part of their movement toward venerating
these security state agencies -- have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles
about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether
lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people
are often forced to plead guilty -- in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution
and the broader Mueller probe.
But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the
most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were
blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political
advantage. In other words, we know now that these agencies did exactly what Democratic
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned they would do to Trump when he appeared on Rachel
Maddow's MSNBC program shortly before Trump's inauguration:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Because U.S. politics is now discussed far more as tests of tribal loyalty ("Whose
side are you on?") than actual ideological or even political beliefs ("Which policies do you
favor or oppose?"), it is very difficult to persuade people to separate their personal or
political views of Flynn ("Do you like him or not?") from the question of whether the U.S.
government abused its power in gravely dangerous ways to prosecute him.
Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are
ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's
views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally)
should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S.
government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the
detainees at Guantanamo to find their
treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people
who are being censured in
order to defend their right of
free expression .
The ability to distinguish between ideological questions from evidentiary
questions is vital for rational discourse to be possible, yet has been all but eliminated at
the altar of tribal fealty. That is why evidentiary questions completely devoid of ideological
belief -- such as whether one found the Russiagate conspiracy theories supported by convincing
evidence -- have been treated not as evidentiary matters but as tribal ones: to be affiliated
with the left (an ideological characterization), one must affirm belief in those conspiracy
theories even if one does not find the evidence in support of them actually compelling. The
conflation of ideological and evidentiary questions, and the substitution of substantive
political debates with tests of tribal loyalty, are indescribably corrosive to our public
discourse.
As a result, whether one is now deemed on the right or left has almost nothing to do with
actual political beliefs about policy questions and everything to do with one's willingness to
serve the interests of one team or another. With the warped formula in place, U.S. politics has
been depoliticized , stripped of any meaningful ideological debates in lieu of mindless
team loyalty oaths on non-ideological questions.
Our newest SYSTEM UPDATE episode, debuting today, is devoted to enabling as clear and
objective an examination as possible of the abuses that drove the Flynn prosecution --
including these critical, newly declassified documents -- as well the broader Russiagate
investigations of which it was a part. These abuses have received far too little attention from
the vast majority of the U.S. media that simply excludes any questioning or dissent of their
prevailing narratives about all of these matters.
Notably, we invited several of the cable stars and security state agents who have been
pushing these conspiracy theories for years to appear on the program for a civil discussion,
but none were willing to do so -- because they are so accustomed to being able to spout these
theories on MSNBC, CNN, and in newspapers without ever being meaningfully challenged.
Regardless of one's views on these scandals, it is unhealthy in the extreme for any media to
insulate themselves from a diversity of views.
As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke
Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a
knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny.
That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their
audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning.
Today's SYSTEM UPDATE episode, which we believe provides the most comprehensive examination
to date of these new documents relating to the Flynn prosecution and how this case relates to
the broader Russiagate investigative abuses, can be viewed above or on The Intercept's YouTube channel .
This is about control of MSM by intelligence agencies, not so much about corruption of
individual journalists. Journalist became like in the USSR "Soldiers of the Party" -- well paid
propagandist of particular, supplied to them talking points.
What is particularly valuable about Smith's article is its perfect description of a media
sickness borne of the Trump era that is rapidly corroding journalistic integrity and
justifiably destroying trust in news outlets. Smith aptly dubs this pathology "resistance
journalism," by which he means that journalists are now not only free, but encouraged and
incentivized , to say or publish anything they want, no matter how reckless and fact-free,
provided their target is someone sufficiently disliked in mainstream liberal media venues
and/or on social media:
[Farrow's] work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has
thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of
social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest
voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than
essential journalistic imperatives.
That can be a dangerous approach, particularly in a moment when the idea of truth and a
shared set of facts is under assault.
In assailing Farrow for peddling unproven conspiracy theories, Smith argues that such
journalistic practices are particularly dangerous in an era where conspiracy theories are
increasingly commonplace. Yet unlike most journalists with a mainstream platform, Smith
emphasizes that conspiracy theories are commonly used not only by Trump and his movement
(conspiracy theories which are quickly debunked by most of the mainstream media), but are also
commonly deployed by Trump's enemies, whose reliance on conspiracy theories is virtually never
denounced by journalists because mainstream news outlets themselves play a key role in peddling
them:
We are living in an era of conspiracies and dangerous untruths -- many pushed by President
Trump, but others hyped by his enemies -- that have lured ordinary Americans into
passionately believing wild and unfounded theories and fiercely rejecting evidence to the
contrary. The best reporting tries to capture the most attainable version of the truth, with
clarity and humility about what we don't know. Instead, Mr. Farrow told us what we wanted to
believe about the way power works, and now, it seems, he and his publicity team are not even
pretending to know if it's true.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected , and one could argue even in the months leading up to
his election, journalistic standards have been consciously jettisoned when it comes to
reporting on public figures who, in Smith's words, are "most disliked by the loudest voices,"
particularly when such reporting "swim[s] ably along with the tides of social media." Put
another way: As long the targets of one's conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as
villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless
career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven -- even false -- attacks on such people,
while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby
frauds.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/OOhRRr6c1wA?autoplay=0&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com&widgetid=1
infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail
leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy; Trump officials conspired with the
Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election; Russia was attacking the U.S. by
hacking its electricity grid , recruiting
journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers , and plotting to cut off heat to
Americans in winter. Mainstream media debacles -- all in service of promoting the same set of
conspiracy theories against Trump -- are literally too numerous to count, requiring one to
select the worst offenses as illustrative .
In March of last year, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi -- writing under the
headline "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD" -- compared the prevailing
media climate since 2016 to that which prevailed in 2002 and 2003 regarding the invasion of
Iraq and the so-called war on terror: little to no dissent permitted, skeptics of
media-endorsed orthodoxies shunned and excluded, and worst of all, the very journalists who
were most wrong in peddling false conspiracy theories were exactly those who ended up most
rewarded on the ground that even though they spread falsehoods, they did so for the
right cause.
Under that warped rubric -- in which spreading falsehoods is commendable as long as
it was done to harm the evildoers -- the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the most
damaging endorsers of
false
conspiracy theories about Iraq , rose to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic,
while two of the most deceitful Bush-era neocons, Bush/Cheney speechwriter David Frum and
supreme propagandist Bill Kristol, have reprised their role as leading propagandists and
conspiracy theorists -- only this time aimed against the GOP president instead of on his behalf
-- and thus have become beloved liberal media icons. The communications director for both the
Bush/Cheney campaign and its White House, Nicole Wallace, is one of the most popular liberal
cable hosts from her MSNBC perch.
Join
Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in
Exactly the same journalism-destroying dynamic is driving the post-Russiagate media landscape.
There is literally no accountability for the journalists and news outlets that spread
falsehoods in their pages, on their airwaves, and through their viral social media postings.
The Washington Post's media columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists
devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable -- recounting how one of the most reckless
Russigate conspiracy maximialists, Natasha Bertrand,
became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial
trash (she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic); MSNBC's
Rachel Maddow
spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it; and
Mother Jones' David Corn played a
crucial, decisively un-journalistic role in mainstreaming the lies of the Steele dossier
all with zero effect on his journalistic status, other than to enrich him through a predictably
bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further.
Wemple's post-Russiagate
series has established him as a commendable, often-lone voice trying -- with futility -- to
bring some accountability to U.S. journalism for the systemic media failures of the past three
years. The reason that's futile is exactly what Smith described in his column on Farrow: In
"resistance journalism," facts and truth are completely dispensable -- indeed, dispensing with
them is rewarded -- provided "reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media
and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices."
That describes perfectly the journalists who were defined, and enriched, by years of
Russiagate deceit masquerading as reporting. By far the easiest path to career success over the
last three years -- booming ratings, lucrative book sales, exploding social media followings,
career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives -- was to feed
establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about
Drumpf and his White House. Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic standards
was completely irrelevant. Responsible reporting was simply was not a metric used to assess its
worth.
It was one thing for activists, charlatans, and con artists to exploit fears of Trump for
material gain: that, by definition, is what such people do. But it was another thing entirely
for journalists to succumb to all the low-hanging career rewards available to them by
throwing all journalistic standards into the trash bin in exchange for a star turn as a
#Resistance icon. That , as Smith aptly describes, is what "Resistance Journalism" is,
and it's hard to identify anything more toxic to our public discourse.
Perhaps the single most shameful and journalism-destroying episode in all of this -- an
obviously difficult title to bestow -- was when a national security blogger, Marcy Wheeler,
violated long-standing norms and ethical standards of journalism by announcing in 2018 that she
had voluntarily turned in her own source to the FBI,
claiming she did so because her still-unnamed source "had played a significant role in the
Russian election attack on the US" and because her life was endangered by her brave decision to
stop being a blogger and become an armchair cop by pleading with the FBI and the Mueller team
to let her work with them. In her blog post announcing what she did, she claimed she was going
public with her treachery because her life was in danger, and this way everyone would know the
real reason if "someone releases stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow."
To say that Wheeler's actions are a grotesque violation of journalistic ethics is to
radically understate the case. Journalists are expected to protect their sources' identities
from the FBI even if they receive a subpoena and a court order compelling its disclosure; we're
expected to go to prison before we comply with FBI attempts to uncover our source's
identity. But here, the FBI did not try to compel Wheeler to tell them anything; they displayed
no interest in her as she desperately tried to chase them down.
By all appearances, Wheeler had to beg the FBI to pay attention to her because they treated
her like the sort of unstable, unhinged, unwell, delusional obsessive who, believing they have
uncovered some intricate conspiracy, relentlessly harass and bombard journalists with their
bizarre theories until they finally prattle to themselves for all of eternity in the spam
filter of our email inboxes. The claim that she was in possession of some sort of explosive and
damning information that would blow the Mueller investigation wide open was laughable. In her
post, she claimed she "always planned to disclose this when this person's role was publicly
revealed," but to date -- almost two years later -- she has never revealed "this person's"
identity because, from all appearances, the Mueller report never relied on Wheeler's intrepid
reporting or her supposedly red-hot secrets.
Like so many other Russiagate obsessives who turned into social media and MSNBC/CNN
#Resistance stars, Wheeler was living a wild, self-serving fantasy, a Cold War Tom Clancy
suspense film that she invented in her head and then cast herself as the heroine: a crusading
investigative dot-connecter uncovering dangerous, hidden conspiracies perpetrated by dangerous,
hidden Cold War-style villains (Putin) to the point where her own life was endangered by her
bravery. It was a sad joke, a depressing spectacle of psycho-drama, but one that could have had
grave consequences for the person she voluntarily ratted out to the FBI. Whatever else is true,
this episode inflicted grave damage on American journalism by having mainstream,
Russia-obsessed journalists not denounce her for her egregious violation of journalistic ethics
but celebrate her for turning journalism on its head.
Why? Because, as Smith said in his Farrow article, she was "swim[ing] ably along with the
tides of social media and produc[ing] damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by
the loudest voices" and thus "the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness [were] more like
impediments than essential journalistic imperatives." Margaret Sullivan, the former New York
Times public editor and now the Washington Post's otherwise reliably commendable media
reporter,
celebrated Wheeler's bizarre behavior under the headline: "A journalist's conscience leads
her to reveal her source to the FBI."
Despite acknowledging that "in their reporting, journalists talk to criminals all the time
and don't turn them in" and that "it's pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect
your sources," Sullivan heralded Wheeler's ethically repugnant and journalism-eroding
violation of those principles. "It's not hard to see that her decision was a careful and
principled one," Sullivan proclaimed.
She even endorsed Wheeler's cringe-inducing, self-glorifying claims about her life being
endangered by invoking long-standard Cold War clichés about the treachery of the
Russkies ("Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for disposing of people
they find threatening."). The English language is insufficient to convey the madness required
to believe that the Kremlin wanted to kill Marcy Wheeler because her blogging was getting Too
Close to The Truth, but in the fevered swamps of resistance journalism, literally no claim was
too unhinged to be embraced provided that it fed the social media #Resistance masses.
Sullivan's article quoted no critics of Wheeler's incredibly controversial behavior
-- no need to: She was on the right side of social media reaction. And Sullivan never bothered
to return to wonder why her prediction -- "Wheeler hasn't named the source publicly, though his
name may soon be known to all who are following the Mueller investigation" -- never
materialized. Both CNN
and, incredibly, the
Columbia Journalism Review published similarly sympathetic accounts of Wheeler's desperate
attempts to turn over her source to the FBI and then cosplay as though she were some sort of
insider in the Mueller investigation. The most menacing attribute of what Smith calls
"Resistance Journalism" is that it permits and tolerates no dissent and questioning: perhaps
the single most destructive path journalism can take. It has been well-documented that MSNBC
and CNN spent three years peddling all sorts of ultimately discredited Russiagate conspiracy
theories by excluding from their airwaves anyone who dissented from or even questioned those
conspiracies. Instead, they relied upon an
increasingly homogenized army of former security state agents from the CIA, FBI, and NSA to
propound, in unison, all sorts of claims about Trump and Russia that turned out to be false,
and peppered their panels of "analysts" with journalists whose career skyrocketed exclusively
by pushing maximalist Russiagate claims, often by relying on the same intelligence officials
these cable outlets sat them next to.
That NBC & MSNBC hired as a "news analyst" John Brennan - who ran the CIA when the
Trump/Russia investigation began & was a key player in the news he was shaping as a paid
colleague of their reporters - is a huge ethical breach. And it produced this: pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf
This trend -- whereby diversity of opinion and dissent from orthodoxies are
excluded from media discourse -- is worsening rapidly due to two major factors. The first is
that cable news programs are constructed to feed their audiences only self-affirming narratives
that vindicate partisan loyalties. One liberal cable host told me that they receive ratings not
for each show but for each segment , and they can see the ratings drop off -- the
remotes clicking away -- if they put on the air anyone who criticizes the party to which that
outlet is devoted (Democrats in the case of MSNBC and CNN, the GOP in the case of Fox).
But there's another more recent and probably more dissent-quashing development: the
disappearance of media jobs. Mass layoffs were already common in online journalism and local
newspapers
prior to the coronavirus pandemic , and have now turned into
an industrywide massacre . With young journalists watching jobs disappearing en masse, the
last thing they are going to want to do is question or challenge prevailing orthodoxies within
their news outlet or, using Smith's "Resistance Journalism" formulation, to "swim against the
tides of social media" or question the evidence amassed against those "most disliked by the
loudest voices."
Affirming those orthodoxies can be career-promoting, while questioning them can be
job-destroying. Consider the powerful incentives journalists face in an industry where jobs are
disappearing so rapidly one can barely keep count. During Russiagate, I often heard from young
journalists at large media outlets who expressed varying degrees of support for and agreement
with the skepticism which I and a handful of other journalists were expressing, but they felt
constrained to do so themselves, for good reason. They watched the reprisals and shunning doled
out even to journalists with a long record of journalistic accomplishments and job security for
the crime of Russiagate skepticism, such as Taibbi (similar to the way MSNBC fired Phil
Donahue in 2002 for opposing the invasion of Iraq), and they know journalists with less
stature and security than Taibbi could not risk incurring that collective wrath.
All professions and institutions suffer when a herd, groupthink mentality and the banning of
dissent prevail. But few activities are corroded from such a pathology more than journalism is,
which has as its core function skepticism and questioning of pieties. Journalism quickly
transforms into a sickly, limp version of itself when it itself wages war on the virtues of
dissent and airing a wide range of perspectives.
I do not know how valid are Smith's critiques of Farrow's journalism. But what I know for
certain is that Smith's broader diagnosis of "Resistance Journalism" is dead-on, and the harms
it is causing are deep and enduring. When journalists know they will thrive by affirming
pleasing falsehoods, and suffer when they insist on unpopular truths, journalism not only loses
its societal value but becomes just another instrument for societal manipulation, deceit, and
coercion.
Those are far from failures, those were successful disinformation/propaganda operations conducted with a certain goal --
remove Trump -- which demonstrate the level of intelligence agencies control of the MSM. In other words those are
parts of a bigger intelligence operation -- the color revolution against Trump led most probably by Obama and Brennan.
Now we know that Obama played an important role in Russiagate media hysteria and, most porbably, in planning and executing the
operation to entrap Flynn.
Notable quotes:
"... They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused ..."
"... Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script: ..."
"... Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery apps; they then retracted it . ..."
"... The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered "sex for favors" were totally false (and scurrilous). ..."
BuzzFeed was once notorious for
traffic-generating "listicles," but has since become an impressive outlet for deep
investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the
news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story
that, like so many others of its kind,
blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the
extremely rare step to
label its key claims "inaccurate."
But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures
in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by
the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news,
the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger
they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets
(particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most
embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is
so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end
with (dis)honorable mention status.
Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave
threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media
outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would
expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories.
That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media
clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors"
went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the
same agenda and script:
10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)
On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that
C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false:
Holy shit. Russia state propaganda (RT) "hacked" into C-SPAN feed and took over for a good
40 seconds today? In middle of live broadcast. https://t.co/pwWYFoDGDU
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat
During the Winter (WashPost)
On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S.
electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along
with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's
notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S.
electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was
false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
https://t.co/LED11lL7ej
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares Mainstream Political Sites on the
Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost Touts its Report to Claim Massive
Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)
On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post
published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian
infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of
at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation
campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."
Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that
reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge
Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig,
and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul
Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note
in memory appended to the top of the article (but
not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the
media ecosystem):
Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent
researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave
permission to them to call Bellingcat "allies" https://t.co/jQKnWzjrBR
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a Russian Hedge Fund Under
Senate Investigation (CNN)
On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the
Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story
and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network. 6. Russia Attacked
U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave
Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)
On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC
spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia
was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic
or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea
what to make of it.
But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered
any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective
psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds"
the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean
male cricket during mating season.
An @NBCNews
exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks
that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the
latest. pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy
and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)
On November 27, 2018, the Guardian
published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed
to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators
exploded.
Seven weeks later,
no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged;
the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into
hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian
official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:
Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian has been told.
https://t.co/Fc2BVmXipk
The Guardian reports that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
the same month that Manafort joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting
that could carry vast implications for the Russia investigation https://t.co/pYawnv4MHH
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source – For a Story
Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew in Advance About the Trump
Tower Meeting (CNN)
On July 27, 2018, CNN
published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that
President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two
problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that
"contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis
was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous
other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however,
to this date has refused to do either: 2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and Witness Interviews Proving Trump
Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)
BREAKING: President Trump personally directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie
to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow in order to obscure his
involvement. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn
The allegation that the President of the United States may have suborned perjury before
our committee in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings
with Russia is among the most serious to date. We will do what's necessary to find out if
it's true. https://t.co/GljBAFqOjh
Listen, if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to
Congress, then we need to know this ASAP. Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about
time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act. https://t.co/ekG5VSBS8G
To those trying to parse the Mueller statement: it's a straight-up denial. Maybe Buzzfeed
can prove they are right, maybe Mueller can prove them wrong. But it's an emphatic denial
https://t.co/EI1J7XLCJe
. @Isikoff :
"There were red flags about the BuzzFeed story from the get-go." Notes it was inconsistent
with Cohen's guilty plea when he said he made false statements about Trump Tower to Congress
to be "consistent" with Trump, not at his direction. pic.twitter.com/tgDg6SNPpG
We at The Post also had riffs on the story our reporters hadn't confirmed. One noted Fox
downplayed it; another said it "if true, looks to be the most damning to date for Trump." The
industry needs to think deeply on how to cover others' reporting we can't confirm
independently. https://t.co/afzG5B8LAP
Washington Post says Mueller's denial of BuzzFeed News article is aimed at the full story:
"Mueller's denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none
of those statements in the story are accurate." https://t.co/ene0yqe1mK
If you're one of the people tempted to believe the self-evidently laughable claim that
there's something "vague" or unclear about Mueller's statement, or that it just seeks to
quibble with a few semantic trivialities, read this @WashPost story about this https://t.co/0io99LyATS
pic.twitter.com/ca1TwPR3Og
You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ
office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means
the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally
wrong.
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously
challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW
I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with
parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly
disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to the WikiLeaks Email Archive
(CNN/MSNBC)
The morning of December 9, 2017, launched
one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so
grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a
major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.
Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to
have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have
been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked
emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC
videos
here ).
There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally
and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks
archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before.
Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and
MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian
message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole
world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all
got the date of the email wrong.
To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong
in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete
silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple,
independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating
– and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources
who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.
Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the
internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just
what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing
is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he
awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously
is:
Knowingly soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national for campaign
purposes violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. If it's worth over $2,000 then penalties
include fines & IMPRISONMENT. @DonaldJTrumpJr may be in bigly
trouble. #FridayFeeling
https://t.co/dRz6Ph17Er
CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it's worth remembering CNN had a
humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to
the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube,
but this remains: pic.twitter.com/0jiA50aIku
ABC News' Brian Ross is fired for
reporting Trump told Flynn to make contact with Russians when he was still a candidate;
in fact, Trump did that after he won.
The New York Times claimed Manafort provided
polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person "close to the Kremlin"; in fact, he
provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked
Ukrainian artillery apps;
they then retracted it .
Bloomberg and the WSJ reported Mueller subpoenaed Deustche Bank for Trump's financial
records; the NYT said
that never happened .
Rachel Maddow devoted 20 minutes at the start of her show to very melodramatically
claiming a highly sophisticated party tried to trick her by sending her a fake Top Secret
document modeled after the one published by the Intercept, and said it could only have come
from the U.S. Government (or the Intercept) since the person obtained the document before it
was published by us and thus must have had special access to it; in fact,
Maddow and NBC completely misread the metadata on the document ; the fake sent to Maddow
was created after we published the document, and was sent to her by a random member of the
public who took the document from the Intercept's site and doctored it to see if she'd fall
for an obvious scam. Maddow's entire timeline, on which her whole melodramatic conspiracy
theory rested, was fictitious.
The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence
agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally
retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies --
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
AP claimed on February 2, 2018, that the Free Beacon commissioned the Steele Dossier;
they thereafter acknowledged that was false and
noted, instead: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was
initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until
after Democratic groups had begun funding it."
Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered
"sex for favors" were
totally false (and scurrilous).
After a Russian regional jet crashed on February 11, 2018, shortly after it took off from
Moscow, killing all 71 people aboard, Harvard Law Professor and frequent MSNBC contributor
Laurence Tribe
strongly implied Putin purposely caused the plane to go down in order to murder Sergei
Millian, a person vaguely linked to George Papadopoulos and Jared Kushner; in fact, Millian
was not on the plane nor, to date, has anyone claimed they had any evidence that Putin
ordered his own country's civilian passenger jet brought down.
Russiaphobia as a pathological reaction on the deep crisis of neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor threatening to destroy the United States' political system. ..."
"... Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response to US policies. ..."
"... Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on "cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit "information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability." 69 ..."
"... Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media, information, and cyber power. ..."
The chapter extends the argument about media and value conflict between Russia and the
United States to the age of Donald Trump. The new value conflict is assessed as especially
acute and exacerbated by the US partisan divide. The Russia issue became central because it
reflected both political partisanship and the growing value division between Trump voters and
the liberal establishment. In addition to explaining the new wave of American Russophobia, the
chapter analyzes Russia's own role and motives. The media are likely to continue the
ideological and largely negative coverage of Russia, especially if Washington and Moscow fail
to develop a pragmatic form of cooperation.
Keywords: Russia, Trump, US elections, narrative of collusion, partisan divide
This chapter addresses the new development in the US media perception of the Russian threat
following the election of Donald Trump as the United States' president. The election revealed
that US national values could no longer be viewed as predominantly liberal and favoring the
global promotion of democracy, as supported by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and
Barack Obama. During and after the election, the liberal media sought to present Moscow as not
only favoring Trump but being responsible for his election and even ruling on behalf of the
Kremlin. Those committed to a liberal worldview led the way in criticizing Russia and Putin for
assaulting liberal democratic values globally and inside the United States. This chapter argues
that the Russia issue became so central in the new internal divide because it reflects both
political partisanship and the growing division between the values of Trump voters and those of
the liberal establishment. The domestic political struggle has exacerbated the divide. Russia's
otherness, again, has highlighted values of "freedom," seeking to preserve the confidence of
the liberal self. (p.82)
The Narrative of Trump's "Collusion" with Russia
During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another
perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin.
1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of
neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy
that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate,
America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here,
infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way
of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an
enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could
not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.
The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different
perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had
been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the
US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats,
commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul.
Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from
America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and
priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the
Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical
Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western
sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia.
Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's
leadership and high level of domestic support. 4
Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party
nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised
candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman,
referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political
credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former
ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had
attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan
divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was
likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to
a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York
Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war
on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of
Donald Trump." 7
The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The
leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on
behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia
and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on
Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's
control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are
also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country,
not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be
a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column
titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the
Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an
investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election
campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane
'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and
retweeted the message. 11
To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and
his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the
press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who
was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of
the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia
as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the
administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in
elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call.
12
In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to
produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with
members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration.
It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence
officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American
social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining
outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel
Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016
presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March
12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen
any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation,
announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15
Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely
reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of
his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia
as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it
clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms.
17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the
Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two
sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize
relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with
Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and
cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US
history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in
Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the
State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that
of a hawk, including on Russia. 20
Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the
Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the
alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of
American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's
most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking
networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media
commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and
counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to
interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own
presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime."
22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging
President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past
time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders.
Opposition to the
"Collusion" Narrative
In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative,
libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to
the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant
evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.
The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented
Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships
with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued
that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military
and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal
media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote
that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much
more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such
Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of
bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to
"derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and
smear campaigns. 25
Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a
dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend
Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National
Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's
"feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with
Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75%
approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by
the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and
nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they
shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and
globalization. 30
Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary
Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving
and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in
that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to
Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that,
overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby
endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine,
appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy
positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian
business with ties to the Kremlin. 34
The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by
Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the
Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as
infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an
interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain
anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the
election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more
than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and
the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda
Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as
Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be
vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of
(p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators --
reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day."
36
However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the
New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's
"laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably
united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed
that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with
Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian
Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's
meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and
that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40
Explaining Russophobia
The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of
previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or
by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization
and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.
The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in
its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence
prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United
States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the
world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of
2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no
longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to
world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following
presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly
divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political
polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October
2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a
major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44
During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate
differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were
never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of
extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump
positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain
the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the
Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting
Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.
The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it
became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the
cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened
retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national
security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public
attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional
correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand
missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and
political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of
hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with
assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She
questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for
President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly
attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48
Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since
roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an
oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses.
Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin
as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent
and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a
"regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out
of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should
challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from
power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to
Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.
Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking
the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's
victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In
February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State
Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner
circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the
Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But
what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and
said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .'
A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it
is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White
House." 52
In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some
Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who
viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's
an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged
interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some
quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the
Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55
Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed
to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the
media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93)
Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a
leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian
officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57
There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and
emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and
anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve
relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal
media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal
elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the
general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the
public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War
developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these
memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the
public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense
of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an
independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and
frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new
"suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.
Russia's Role and
Motives
Russia's "attacking" America and Trump's "colluding" with the Kremlin remained poorly
substantiated. Taken together, the DNC hacking, Trump's and Putin's mutual praise, and Trump
associates' (p.94) contacts with Russian officials implied Kremlin infiltration of the United
States' internal politics. Yet viewed separately, each was questionable and unproven. Some of
these points could have also been made about Hillary Clinton, who had ties to Russian -- not to
mention Saudi Arabian -- business circles and Ukrainian politicians. 59 Political views cannot be counted as evidence. Contacts with Russian
officials could have been legitimate exchanges of views about two countries' interests and
potential cooperation. Even the CIA- and the FBI-endorsed conclusion that Russia attacked the
DNC servers was questioned by some observers on the grounds that forensic evidence was lacking
and that it relied too much on findings by one cybersecurity company. 60 In general, discussion of Russia in the US media lacked nuances and a sense
of proportion. As Jesse Walker, an editor at Reason magazine and author of The United
States of Paranoia , pointed out,
There's a difference between thinking that Moscow may have hacked the Democratic National
Committee and thinking that Moscow actually hacked the election, between thinking the
president may have Russian conflicts of interest and thinking he's a Russian puppet . . .
when someone like the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares that Putin "installed"
Donald Trump as president, he's moving out of the realm of plausible plots and into the world
of fantasy. Similarly, Clinton's warning that Trump could be Putin's "puppet" leaped from an
imaginable idea, that Putin wanted to help her rival, to the much more dubious notion that
Putin thought he could control the impulsive Trump. (Trump barely seems capable of
controlling himself.) 61
The loose and politically tendentious nature of discussions, circulation of questionable
leaks and dossiers complied by unidentified (p.95) individuals, and lack of serious evidence
led a number of observers to conclude that the Russia story was more about stopping Trump than
about Russia. The Russian scandal was symptomatic of the poisonous state of bilateral relations
that Democrats exploited for the purpose of derailing Trump. US-Russia relations became a
hostage of partisan domestic politics. As one liberal and tough critic of Putin wrote,
Democratic lawmakers' rhetoric of war in connection with the 2016 elections "places Republicans
-- who often characterize themselves as more hawkish on Russia and defense -- in a bind as they
try to defend to the new administration's strategy towards Moscow." 62 Another observer noted that Russiagate performed "a critical function for
Trump's political foes," allowing "them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they
either share his priorities or have no viable alternative." 63
The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was
capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor
threatening to destroy the United States' political system. A number of analysts, such as Mark Schrad, identified fears of Russia as "increasingly hysterical fantasies" and argued that
Russia was not a global menace. 64 If the Kremlin was indeed behind the cyberattacks, it was not for the reasons
commonly broached. Rather than trying to subvert the US system, it sought to defend its own
system against what it perceived as a US policy of changing regimes and meddling in Russia's
internal affairs. The United States has a long history of covert activities in foreign
countries. 65 Washington's establishment has never followed the advice given by prominent
American statesmen such as George Kennan to let Russians "be Russians" and "work out their
internal problems in their own manner." 66 Instead, the United States assumes that America defines the rules and
boundaries of proper behavior in international politics, while others must simply follow the
rules.
(p.96) Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive
tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response
to US policies. Experts observe that Russia's conception of cyber and other informational power
serves the overall purpose of protecting national sovereignty from encroachments by the United
States. 67Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks
to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United
States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber
area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on
"cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit
"information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia
proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states
subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies
and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of
other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability."
69
Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that
undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly
challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain
external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the
vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media
space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media,
information, and cyber power.
Atlantic Council senior fellow, Congressional candidate, and Russia conspiracy theorist
Evelyn Farkas is desperately trying to salvage her reputation after recently released
transcripts from her closed-door 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed
she totally lied on national TV .
In March of 2017, Farkas confidently told MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski: " The Trump folks, if
they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians , that they
would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to
that intelligence ."
Except, during testimony to the House, Farkas admitted she lied . When pressed by former
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on why she said 'we' - referring to the US government, Farkas said she
"didn't know anything."
In short, she was either illegally discussing US intelligence matters with her "former
colleagues," or she made the whole thing up.
Now, Farkas is in damage control mode - writing in the
Washington Post that her testimony demonstrated "that I had not leaked intelligence and
that my early intuition about Trump-Kremlin cooperation was valid.' She also claims that her
comments to MSNBC were based on "media reports and statements by Obama administration officials
and the intelligence community," which had "began unearthing connections between Trump's
campaign and Russia."
Farkas is now blaming a 'disconcerting nexus between Russia and the reactionary right,' for
making her look bad (apparently Trey Gowdy is part of the "reactionary right" for asking her
who she meant by "we").
Attacks against me came first on Twitter and other social media platforms, from far-right
sources. Forensics data I was shown suggested at least one entity had Russian ties . The
attacks increased in quantity and ferocity until Fox News and Trump-allied Republicans --
higher-profile, and more mainstream, sources -- also criticized me .
...
Trump surrogates, including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski ,
Donald Trump Jr. and Fox
News hosts such as Tucker Carlson have essentially accused me
of treason for being one of the "fraudulent originators" of the "Russia hoax." -Evelyn
Farkas
She then parrots the Democratic talking point that the attacks she's received are part of
Trump's larger "Obamagate" allegations - " a narrative that distracts attention from his
administration's disastrous pandemic response and attempts to defect blame for Russian
interference onto the Obama administration" (Obama told Putin to ' cut it out ' after all).
Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar
and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have
called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that
right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day,
Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter
accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media
behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced
now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the
largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that
includes crowdstrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier
based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrBoompi, 18 minutes ago
Lying is a common occurrence on MSNBC. Farkas was just showing her party she is qualified
for a more senior position.
chubbar, 23 minutes ago
My opinion, based on zero facts, is that the lie she told was to Gowdy. She had to say she
lied about having intelligence data or she'd be looking at a felony along with whomever she
was talking to in the US gov't. You just know these cocksuckers in the resistance don't give
a **** about laws or fairness, it's all about getting Trump. So they set up an informal
network to get classified intelligence from the Obama holdovers out into the wild where these
assholes could use it against Trump and the gov't operations. Treason. She needs to be
executed for her efforts!
LetThemEatRand, 59 minutes ago
This whole thing reminds me of a fan watching their team play a championship game. If the
ref makes a bad call and their team wins, they don't care. And if the ref makes a good call
and their team loses, they blame the ref. No one cares about the truth or the facts. That in
a nutshell is politics in the US. If you believe that anyone will "switch sides" or admit the
ref made a bad call or a good call, you're smoking the funny stuff.
mtumba, 50 minutes ago
It's a natural response to a corrupt system.
When the system is wholly corrupt so that truth doesn't matter, what else is there to care
about other than your side winning?
"... William C. Patrick III would also become involved the FBI's Amerithrax investigation, even though he was initially suspected of involvement in the attacks. However, after having passed a lie detector test, he was added to the FBI's "inner circle" of technical advisors on the Amerithrax case, despite the fact that Patrick's protege , Stephen Hatfill, was the FBI's top suspect at the time. Hatfill was later cleared of wrongdoing and the FBI eventually blamed a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Ivins for the crime, hiding a "mountain" of evidence exonerating Ivins to do so, according to the FBI's former lead investigator. ..."
"... That same year, Hatfill offered Patrick another consulting job at SAIC and commissioned Patrick to perform a study describing "a fictional terrorist attack in which an envelope containing weapons-grade anthrax is opened in an office." The Baltimore Sun would later report that Patrick's study for SAIC discussed the "danger of anthrax spores spreading through the air and the requirements for decontamination after various kinds of attacks" as well as how many grams of anthrax would need to be placed within a standard business envelope in order to conduct such an attack. ..."
"... In addition, the FBI's supposed "smoking gun" used to link Bruce Ivins' to the anthrax attacks was the fact that a flask in Ivins' lab labeled RMR-1029 was determined to be its "parent" strain. Yet, it would later be revealed that portions of RMR-1029 had been sent by Ivins to Battelle's Ohio facility prior to the anthrax attacks. An analysis of the water used to make the anthrax also revealed that the anthrax spores had been created in the northeastern United States and follow-up analyses narrowed down the only possible sources as coming from one of three labs: Fort Detrick, a lab at the University of Scranton, or Battelle's West Jefferson facility. ..."
"... After Ivins' untimely "suicide" in 2008, Department of Justice civil attorneys would publicly challenge the FBI's assertions that Ivins had been the culprit and instead "suggested that a private laboratory in Ohio" managed by Battelle "could have been involved in the attacks." ..."
"... As previously noted in Part II of this series, BioPort was set to lose its contract for anthrax vaccine entirely in August 2001 and the entirety of its anthrax vaccine business was rescued by the 2001 anthrax attacks, which saw concerns over BioPort's corruption replaced with fervent demands for more of its anthrax vaccine. ..."
"... Of course, at the time, the only government known to be genetically engineering a pathogen was the U.S., as reported by the New York Times ' Judith Miller . Miller reported in October 2001 that the Pentagon, in the wake of the anthrax attacks, had approved "a project to make a potentially more potent form of anthrax bacteria" through genetic modification, a project that would be conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute. ..."
"... This was the continuation of the project, which had involved William Patrick and Ken Alibek, and the Pentagon moved to restart it after the attacks, though it is unclear if either Patrick or Alibek continued to work on the subsequent iteration of Battelle's efforts to produce a more virulent strain of anthrax. That project was paused a month prior when Miller and other journalists disclosed the existence of the program in an article published on September 4, 2001. ..."
A POWERFUL NETWORK OF POLITICAL OPERATIVES, A GLOBAL VACCINE MAFIA AND THEIR MAN IN WASHINGTON.
Last Friday, a group of Democratic Senators "
demanded " that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Robert
Kadlec, "accurately disclose all his personal, financial and political ties in light of new reporting that he had failed to do so
previously" after it was revealed that he had failed to note all "potential conflicts of interest" on his nomination paperwork.
The report in question, published
last Monday by The Washington Post , detailed the ties of Kadlec to a man named Fuad El-Hibri, the founder of a "life
sciences" company first known as BioPort and now called Emergent Biosolutions. Kadlec had previously disclosed his ties to El-Hibri
and Emergent Biosolutions for a separate nomination years prior, but had failed to do so when nominated to head ASPR.
Though The Post does note Kadlec's recent failure to disclose these connections, the article largely sanitizes Kadlec's
earlier yet crucial history and even obfuscates the full extent of his ties to the BioPort founder, among other glaring omissions.
In reality, Kadlec has much more than his ties to El-Hibri looming large as "potential conflict of interests," as his decades-long
career in shaping U.S. "biodefense" policy was directly enabled by his deep ties to intelligence, Big Pharma, the Pentagon and a
host of corrupt yet powerful characters.
Thanks to a long and deliberate process to introduce biodefense policy, driven by Robert Kadlec and his sponsors, $7 billion dollars-worth
of federally-owned vaccines, antidotes and medicines – held in strategically arranged repositories across the country in case of
a health emergency – are now in the hands of one single individual. Those repositories, which compose the Strategic National Stockpile
(SNS), are the exclusive domain of HHS' ASPR, a post created under Kadlec's watchful eye and tailored over the years to meet his
very specific requirements.
From this perch, Robert Kadlec has final say on where the stockpile's contents are sourced, as well as how, when and where they
are deployed. He is the sole source procurer of medical material and pharmaceuticals, making him the best friend of Big Pharma and
other healthcare industry giants who have been in his ear every step of the way.
Kadlec assures us, however, that the fact that he now holds the very office he worked so long to create is merely a coincidence.
"My participation in the ASPR project began at that time when I was working for the chairman of the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism
and Public Health Preparedness The bill was made law and the ASPR was created. It just was a coincidence that, 12 or 14 years later,
I was asked to become the ASPR," Kadlec
stated in 2018.
It was all a random twist of fate, Kadlec asserts, that saw him occupy ASPR at this crucial moment in U.S. history. Indeed, with
the country now in the middle of a WHO-declared coronavirus pandemic, Kadlec now has full control over the far-reaching "emergency"
powers of that very office, bestowed upon him by the very law that he had written.
The story of how a former USAF flight
surgeon came to have the exclusive dealer license over the single biggest stash of drugs in the history of the world is as disturbing
as it is significant in light of current events, particularly given that Kadlec
now leads the
coronavirus response for all of HHS. Yet, Kadlec's rise to power is not a case of an evil mastermind conquering a uniquely vulnerable
point of the nation's resources. Instead, it is a case of a man deeply enmeshed in the world of intelligence, military intelligence
and corporate corruption dutifully fulfilling the vision of his friends in high places and behind closed doors.
In this third installment of "
Engineering Contagion:
Amerithrax, Coronavirus and the Rise of the Biotech-Industrial Complex ," Kadlec is shown to hail from a tight-knit group
of "bioterror alarmists" in government and the private sector who gained prominence thanks to their penchant for imagining the most
horrific, yet fictitious scenarios that inspired fear among Presidents, top politicians and the American public. Among those fictitious
scenarios was the "Dark Winter" exercise discussed in
Part I .
Some of these alarmists, among them "cold warriors" from Fort Detrick's days of openly developing offensive weapons, would engage
in unsettling anthrax experiments and studies while developing suspect ties in 2000 to a company called BioPort. As noted in
Part II of this series, BioPort stood to lose everything in early September 2001 due to controversy over its anthrax vaccine.
Of course, the 2001 anthrax attacks that followed shortly thereafter would change everything, not just for BioPort, but U.S. biodefense
policy. With the stage set, Kadlec would quickly spring into action, guiding major policy changes on the heels of subsequent major
events and disasters, culminating in his crowning as King of the stockpile.
THE ACCIDENTAL MADMAN
Robert Kadlec describes himself as having been an "accidental tourist" regarding his introduction to biological warfare. An Air
Force physician who had specialized in tropical diseases, Kadlec would later say his interest in the field began when he was assigned
to be a special assistant for Chemical and Biological Warfare to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC),
advising
then-head of Special Operations Command Maj. Gen. Wayne Downing, on the eve of the first Gulf War.
Kadlec
would
later state that he had witnessed firsthand how the military, immediately prior to the Gulf War, had "lacked the necessary protective
equipment, detectors, and medical countermeasures including vaccines and antibiotics against the immediate threats posed by Iraq,"
allegedly prompting him to want to better U.S. biodefense efforts.
While holding this post at JSOC, Kadlec was privy to the advice of
William
C. Patrick III , a veteran of the U.S.' bioweapons program who had developed the U.S.' method for weaponizing anthrax and held
no less than five classified patents related to the toxin's use in warfare. Patrick, who had left government service in 1986 to become
a consultant, advised the Pentagon -- then headed by Dick Cheney -- that the risk of a biological weapons attack by Iraq, particularly
anthrax, was high. Patrick's warning prompted the U.S. military to vaccinate tens of thousands of its troops using the controversial
anthrax vaccine "anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA)." Kadlec would
personally
inject AVA into around 800 members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Kadlec
would
later note in Congressional testimony that no definitive proof of an alleged Iraqi biological weapons program was found during
the war or afterwards, but nevertheless claimed elsewhere that "the Iraqis later admitted they had procured large quantities of a
biological agents-anthrax and botulism toxin," suggesting that Patrick's warnings had had some basis in reality.
However, Kadlec failed to point out that these anthrax and botulism samples had been sold, with the U.S. government's full approval,
to Iraq's Ministry of Education by a U.S. private non-profit called the American Type Culture Collection. Donald Rumsfeld, who was
then an envoy for the Reagan administration and running a pharmaceutical company later sold to Monsanto,
would also be
involved in the shipment of these samples to Iraq.
Following the war, American microbiologist Joshua Lederberg was tasked by the Pentagon to head the investigation into "Gulf War
Syndrome," a phenomenon that studies
later linked to the adverse effects of the anthrax vaccine. Lederberg's task force argued that evidence regarding an association
between the symptomology and the anthrax vaccine was insufficient. However, he would later come under fire after it was reported
that he sat on the board
of the American Type Culture Collection, the very company that had shipped anthrax to Iraq's government between 1985 and 1989 with
the U.S. government's blessing. Lederberg
later admitted that the
investigation he led had not spent enough "time and effort digging out the details". The taskforce's findings were later
harshly criticized
by the Government Accountability Office.
Dr. Lederberg would prove to be an early, if not seminal, influence on Robert Kadlec's outlook regarding the subject of biowarfare.
The Nobel Laureate and long-time president of Rockefeller University was one of the fathers of bioterror alarmism in the United States,
alongside William C. Patrick III and other members of a tight-knit group of "cold warrior" microbiologists. Kadlec and Lederberg
would
go on to collaborate
on several books and
policy studies throughout the late 1990s and into 2001.
Years later, at a Congressional hearing, Kadlec
would
say that Lederberg's words "resonate constantly with me and serve as a practical warning." Aside from Lederberg, Kadlec was also
writing numerous books and articles with Randall Larsen, who
would later hire the
Medical doctor to teach "military strategy and operations" at the National War College, where Larsen's
close friend – William C. Patrick III
–
also taught .
A POISONED OASIS
Many of Kadlec's bioterror ravings have been preserved in 25-year old textbooks, like a U.S. Air War College textbook entitled
" Battlefield of the Future
" where Kadlec calls on the government to create a massive stockpile of drugs and vaccines to protect the population from a biological
weapons attack, particularly anthrax or smallpox. In one chapter, Kadlec
argued that stockpiles of necessary antibiotics,
immunoglobulins and vaccines would have to be procured, maintained, and be readily available to administer within hours."
Kadlec's views on the matter at the time of writing were greatly influenced by his first tour as a UNSCOM weapons inspector in
Iraq in 1994, where he was accompanied by William Patrick, among others. Kadlec would later return to Iraq in the same capacity in
1996 and 1998 in search of Iraq's alleged stores of weaponized anthrax that Patrick had been so sure were there, but had never materialized.
After three visits, Kadlec would later confess that, despite
what
Kadlec called "the most intrusive inspection and monitoring regime ever conceived and implemented" by the UN, the UNSCOM weapons
inspectors, including himself and William Patrick, "failed to uncover any irrefutable evidence of an offensive BW program." Kadlec
would
later return to Iraq on two separate occasions following the 2003 U.S. invasion of country, again finding no proof of the program's
existence.
By 1995, Kadlec was already imbued with the bioweapons alarmism that had been championed by Lederberg and Patrick. That year,
he fleshed out several "illustrative scenarios"
regarding the use of "biological economic warfare" against the United States. One of these fictional scenarios, titled "Corn Terrorism,"
involves China planning "an act of agricultural terrorism" by clandestinely spraying corn seed blight over the Midwest using commercial
airliners. The result of the "Corn Terrorism" scenario is that "China gains significant corn market share and tens of billions [of]
dollars of additional profits from their crop," while the U.S. sees its corn crop obliterated, causing food prices to rise and the
U.S. to import corn. Another scenario, entitled "That's a 'Lousy' Wine," involves "disgruntled European winemakers" covertly releasing
grape lice they have hidden in cans of paté to target California wine producers.
Around this same time, in 1994, the relatively young
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
or OTA , which informed policy decisions around questions of technological and scientific complexity on matters of national security,
was cut by the new Republican majority that took both houses in the pivotal 1994 midterms elections. At the time of its defunding,
Lederberg sat on the OTA's Technology Assessment Advisory Council (OTA-TAAC),
along with pharma industry insiders from
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly Research Labs and pre-merger Smith-Kline, and chaired one of its last study panels.
In OTA's place, an independent, non-profit entity called The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS) was co-founded by Special
Consultant to President H.W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) and a former CIA program monitor, Michael S. Swetnam,
who was reportedly " tasked with profiling
Osama Bin Laden before the September 11th attacks were enacted ."
The defunding of the OTA and subsequent creation of PIPS transferred policy-making on what are, perhaps, the most sensitive issues
of national security away from Congress and into a private foundation teeming with operators from the vast underbelly of the military
industrial complex (MIC). Former military officers,
DARPA scientists , NASA policy experts,
FBI agents,
CIA operatives and defense contractors like Northrop Grumman can all be found on their member rolls and in their boardrooms.
PIPS and its sponsors would shadow Robert Kadlec's career in government from the very beginning and remain in close proximity
to him today. One PIPS-linked individual would work particularly closely with Kadlec, Tevi Troy – a senior fellow at PIPS and an
adjunct fellow at the much more polished Hudson Institute, itself a major funder of PIPS. Troy has long been integral in shaping
Kadlec's biodefense policy agenda, which would remain conspicuously static and unchanging throughout the career he was just beginning.
POX AMERICANA
By 1996, talks had begun within military
leadership regarding what would become the Pentagon's mandatory anthrax vaccination program, a policy tirelessly promoted by Joshua
Lederberg, who was involved in "investigating" the links between the anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Syndrome. The private talks took
place in parallel with a public push to bring biological warfare to the forefront of American public consciousness. One particularly
egregious example occurred when then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen
went on ABC News with
a five-pound bag of sugar, stating that "this amount of anthrax could be spread over a city -- let's say the size of Washington.
It would destroy at least half the population of that city."
At the same time, Joshua Lederberg was also advocating for the stockpiling of a smallpox vaccine, which the U.S. military also
took to heart, giving
a company called DynPort an exclusive multi-million dollar contract to produce a new smallpox vaccine in 1997. Soon after, BioPort,
DynPort's sister company , was formed and would soon come to monopolize the production of that vaccine.
By the time BioPort (now known as Emergent Biosolutions) had controversially gained control over this lucrative Pentagon contract
in 1998, then-President Bill Clinton was publicly warning
that the U.S. must "confront the new hazards of biological and chemical weapons," adding that Saddam Hussein specifically was
"developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." However, there was no intelligence to back
up these claims, especially after the failed attempts by weapon inspectors, like Robert Kadlec and William Patrick, to find any evidence
of an Iraqi biological weapons program.
Despite the lack of evidence regarding Iraq's alleged "WMD" programs, Clinton's concern over a biological weapons threat was
said to have been the result of his reading of
"The Cobra Event", a novel about how a genetically-modified pathogen called "brainpox" ravages New York City. The novel's author,
Richard Preston,
had been advised on biowarfare and genetically-modified pathogens by none other than William Patrick. Patrick,
then an adviser to the CIA, FBI and
military intelligence, also participated in closed
door meetings with Clinton on biological weapons, claiming that their use was inevitable and that the deadliest of pathogens could
easily be made in a "terrorist's garage."
It is also likely that Clinton's alarmism over biological and chemical weapons had been informed, in part, by a roundtable hosted
at the White House on April 10, 1998. This "
White House Roundtable on Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons ," included a group of "outside experts"
spear-headed by Joshua
Lederberg and included several other bioterror alarmists, such as: Jerome Hauer, then-serving as Director of New York City's Office
of Emergency Management (who also was advised
by William Patrick III) and Thomas Monath, a vaccine industry executive and chief science advisor to CIA director George Tenet.
Discussed in-depth at the roundtable were "both the opportunities and the national security challenges posed by genetic engineering
and biotechnology" as well as "classified material
relating to threat assessments and how the United States responds to particular scenarios."
Robert Kadlec, despite being a Republican, remains very fond of Bill Clinton, perhaps because the former president was so attentive
to the dire predictions of the "biodefense experts" who shadowed Kadlec's own career. Kadlec credits the former president with doing
a "lot of good things" and
making important
contributions to the advancement of the biotech industrial complex's policy agenda.
Clinton would issue several executive orders and Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs) during this period, such as PDD-62, which
specifically addressed preparations for a "WMD" attack on the U.S. and called for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
then-led by Donna Shalala, to lead the national response to a WMD attack. Fortuitously for Kadlec, PDD-62 also called for the construction
of a national stockpile of vaccines, antibiotics and other medical supplies.
At the time, Kadlec was already evangelizing the public about a seemingly imminent, doomsday anthrax attack he was certain would
strike at any second. As quoted in
a 1998 article from the
Vancouver Sun , Kadlec speculated:
"If several kilograms of an agent like anthrax were disseminated in New York City today, conservative estimates put the number
[of] deaths occurring in the first few days at 400,000. Thousands of others would be at risk of dying within several days if proper
antibiotics and vaccination were not started immediately. Millions of others would be fearful of being exposed and seek or demand
medical care as well. Beyond the immediate health implications of such an act, the potential panic and civil unrest would create
an equally large response."
Kadlec's doomsday speculations about biological weapons attacks had caught the attention of Randall Larsen, the
then-director of the National War College's Department of Military Strategy
and Operations, who hired
Kadlec because he "had become convinced that the most serious threat to national security was not Russian or Chinese missiles,
but a pandemic – either man-made or naturally occurring." Soon after, Kadlec and Larsen
would collaborate closely
, co-authoring several studies together.
Meanwhile, their colleague at the National War College, William Patrick III was simultaneously working for the U.S. military and
intelligence contractor, the Battelle Memorial Institute, where he was secretly developing a genetically-modified, more potent form
of anthrax for a classified Pentagon program.
THE BIOTERROR INTELLIGENTSIA
A year after hiring Robert Kadlec to teach at the National War College, Randall Larsen was also involved in the creation of a
new organization called the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security (ANSER-IHS), and served as its director. This Institute for Homeland
Security, first initiated and funded in October 1999, was an extension of the ANSER Institute, which itself had been spun off from
the RAND Corporation in the late 1950s. The RAND Corporation is a national security-focused "think tank" with long-standing ties
to the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Carnegie Corporation.
ANSER's expansion through ANSER-IHS was foreshadowed by the entry of "homeland defense" into popular political discourse within
the Washington Beltway. The term is
alleged
to have first originated from a National Defense Panel report submitted in 1997 and is credited to Defense Panel member and former
CIA officer with ties to the agency's Phoenix program, Richard Armitage. Armitage was part of the group known as the "
Vulcans ," who
advised George W. Bush on foreign policy matters prior to the 2000 presidential election.
As journalist Margie Burns pointed out in
a 2002
article , the need for "homeland defense" as a major focus of U.S. government policy, including the push to create a new "homeland
security" agency, was dramatically amplified following its alleged coining by Armitage in 1997. This was thanks, in part, to a web
of media outlets owned by
South Korean
cult leader and CIA asset Sun Myong Moon, including the Washington Times, Insight Magazine and UPI , all of which
published numerous articles penned by ANSER analysts or that heavily cited ANSER reports and employees regarding the need for a greatly
expanded "homeland security" apparatus.
One such article, published by Insight Magazine in May 2001 and entitled "
Preparing for the Next
Pearl Harbor ," heavily cites ANSER and its Institute for Homeland Security as being among "the nation's top experts" in warning
that a terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland was imminent. It also stated that "the first responders on tomorrow's battlefield won't
be soldiers, but city ambulance workers and small-town firefighters."
ANSER-IHS was created at the behest of ANSER's CEO
, Dr. Ruth David, who became ANSER's top executive after leaving a lengthy career at the CIA, where she had served as the agency's
Deputy Director for Science and Technology. On
ANSER-IHS's board at
the time, alongside David, were Joshua Lederberg and Dr. Tara O'Toole, then-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Bio-defense
Studies who would later co-write
the Dark Winter exercise
.
Though first created in 1999, ANSER-IHS did not officially launch until April 2001. That same month, Robert Kadlec, at the National
War College, sponsored the paper "
A Micro-threat
with Macro-Impact: The Bio-Threat and the Need for a National Bio-Defense Security Strategy ." That paper starts by citing several
former CIA officials as well as Dr. O'Toole (who now works for the CIA's venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel) as proof that a bioterrorist
attack is "perhaps the greatest threat the U.S. faces in the next century" and that such an attack would inevitably target "Americans
on American soil."
This Kadlec-sponsored report also called for the creation of the National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA), the framework for which
was contained in H.R. 1158, introduced a month prior in March 2001. The paper urged that the creation of this new cabinet-level agency
be enacted "quickly, so the resulting single executive agent (identified from here on as the NHSA) can begin its critical work."
It also argued that this agency include "a deputy director position specifically responsible for preparing and responding to a bio-attack."
Other measures recommended in the paper included greatly expanding the national defense stockpile; creating a national disease
reporting system; and the creation of real-time, automated bio-threat detectors. The latter would be initiated soon after the publication
of this paper, resulting in the controversial Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information Systems (BASIS). BASIS was discussed in
Part I of this series,
particularly its role in "induc[ing] the very panic and social disruption it is intended to thwart" during and after the 2001 anthrax
attacks that would occur months later. BASIS was developed largely by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose
national security
fellow – former Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) director Jay Davis, was
then-chairman of ANSER's
board of directors.
Also notable is the fact that Kadlec's April 2001 report cites the
largely discredited yet still
influential Ken Alibek on several occasions, including his allegation that anyone with internet access and a few bucks could produce
and unleash weapons-grade anthrax with ease. Some of the nation's top anthrax experts
would discredit this claim, with the exception of
William C. Patrick III.
This is likely because it was Patrick who had been
asked by the CIA to "vet" Alibek after he had
first defected from the Soviet Union 1992, making Patrick responsible for determining the credibility of Alibek's controversial claims,
including his
incorrect assertions
that Saddam Hussein had overseen a massive biological weapons program. Regarding their meeting, Patrick
would later say "I won't say we fell in love, but we gained an immediate respect for one another."
At the time of Alibek's defection, Robert Kadlec – who had been assigned to the Pentagon's Office of the Secretary of Defense
for Counter-proliferation policy after the Gulf War – would later recall
during
2014 Congressional testimony having "witnessed the efforts to ascertain the truth behind the former Soviet Union's BW [biological
weapons] effort" that had intimately involved Alibek and Patrick. Kadlec would also note that "the fate of these agents [related
to the Soviet Union's BW program] and associated weapons," including those described by Alibek, "was never satisfactorily resolved."
Alibek's shocking yet dubious claims were often used and
promoted by Joshua Lederberg (who
had debriefed other
Soviet bioweapons researchers after their defections), Patrick and others to support their favored "biodefense" policies as well
as the need for "defensive" bioweapons research, including clandestine efforts to genetically-engineer anthrax on which Patrick and
Alibek would later collaborate.
SETTING THE WHEELS IN MOTION
Just a few months before ANSER-IHS' "official" launch, another organization with a related focus was launched -- the Nuclear Threat
Initiative (NTI). Created by media mogul Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn in January 2001, NTI aimed not only to "reduce the
threat" posed by nuclear weapons, but also chemical and biological weapons.
In announcing NTI's formation on CNN , the network Turner had founded,
Nunn stated that while "nuclear weapons pose
the gigantic danger, but biological and chemical weapons are the most likely to be used. And there are thousands of scientists in
the former Soviet Union that know how to make these weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear, but don't know how to feed
their families." Nunn continued, stating that NTI hoped "to begin to help, some hope for gainful employment for people that we don't
want to end up making chemical and biological and nuclear weapons in other parts of the world." NTI's mission in this regard likely
came as welcome news to Joshua Lederberg, who
had long advocated that the
U.S. offer employment to bioweapons researchers from the former Soviet Union to prevent their employ by "rogue regimes."
Alongside Nunn and Tuner on NTI's board was William Perry, a former Secretary of Defense; former Senator Dick Lugar, for whom
the
alleged U.S. bioweapons lab in Georgia is named; and Margaret Hamburg, who was NTI's Vice President overseeing its work on biological
weapons. Margaret Hamburg's father, David Hamburg, a long-time president of the Carnegie Corporation, was also
an advisor and "distinguished fellow"
at NTI. David Hamburg was a longtime
close advisor ,
associate , and
friend of Joshua Lederberg.
Both Sam Nunn and Margaret Hamburg of NTI, as well as top officials from ANSER, would come together in June 2001 to participate
in an exercise simulating a bioweapons attack called "Dark Winter." Nunn would play the role of president in the exercise and Hamburg
played the head of HHS in the fictional scenario. Jerome Hauer,
then-managing director
of the intelligence-linked outfit Kroll Inc. and a Vice President at the military-intelligence contractor Scientific Applications
International Corporation (SAIC), played the head of FEMA.
The Dark Winter exercise itself was largely written by Tara O'Toole (ANSER-IHS board member) and Thomas Inglesby of the Johns
Hopkins Center for Civilian Bio-defense Studies as well as Randall Larsen of ANSER-IHS. Robert Kadlec also participated in the creation
of the script and appears in the fictional, scripted news clips used in the exercise.
As detailed in Part I
of this series, the Dark Winter exercise eerily predicted many aspects of what would follow just months later during the 2001
anthrax attacks, including predictions that threatening letters would be sent to members of the press with the promise of biological
weapons attacks involving anthrax. Dark Winter also provided the initial narrative for the 2001 anthrax attacks, which held that
Iraq and Al Qaeda had been jointly responsible. However, soon after the attacks, evidence quickly pointed to the anthrax having originated
from a domestic source linked to military experiments. In addition, several Dark Winter participants and authors either had apparent
foreknowledge of those attacks (especially Jerome Hauer) and/or were involved in the FBI controversial investigation into the attacks
(including Robert Kadlec).
On the day of September 11, 2001, Kadlec and Randall Larsen were set to begin co-teaching
a course
on "Homeland Security" at the National War College. It's course syllabus draws from quotes on the imminent threat of bioterrorism
from Joshua Lederberg as well as Dark Winter participant and former CIA director James Woolsey, who called a biological weapons attack
"the single most dangerous threat to U.S. national security in the foreseeable future."
The course was also set to include its own lengthy use of the Dark Winter exercise, where students would re-enact the June 2001
exercise as part of an end-of-semester research project. However, given the events that took place on September 11, 2001, Kadlec
never went on to teach that course, as he instead went to the Pentagon to focus on the "bio-terror threat" in the weeks that preceded
the 2001 anthrax attacks.
THE AFTER (ANTHRAX) PARTY
Immediately after the events of September 11, 2001, Kadlec became
a special
advisor on biological warfare to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. In the days that followed,
Rumsfeld openly and publicly
stated that he expected America's enemies, specifically Saddam Hussein, to aid unspecified terrorist groups in obtaining chemical
and biological weapons, a narrative that was analogous to that used in the Dark Winter exercise that Kadlec had helped create.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Dark Winter's other co-authors -- Randall Larsen, Tara O'Toole and Thomas Inglesby -- personally
briefed Dick Cheney on Dark Winter, at a time when Cheney and his staff had been warned by another Dark Winter figure, Jerome Hauer,
to take the antibiotic Cipro to prevent anthrax infection. It is unknown how many members of the administration were taking Cipro
and for how long.
Hauer, along with James Woolsey and New York Times reporter Judith Miller (who also attended Dark Winter),
would spend the weeks
between 9/11 and the public disclosure of the anthrax attacks making numerous media appearances (and, in Miller's case, writing dozens
of reports) regarding the use of anthrax as a biological weapon. Members of the controversial think thank the Project for a New American
Century (PNAC), which included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among its ranks, also warned that a biological weapons attack was
set to follow on the heels of 9/11. These
included Richard Perle,
then advising the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon, and Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard .
One would think that all of these well-timed warnings would have left this clique of government insiders the least surprised once
the anthrax attacks were publicly disclosed on October 4, 2001. However, despite constantly warning of doomsday anthrax attack scenarios
for a decade and advising the Pentagon on this very threat immediately beginning just weeks prior, Robert Kadlec
would
subsequently claim to have yelled, "You gotta be sh*ttin' me!" when he first learned of the attacks.
Another pre-attack anthrax prophet, Judith Miller, would recall becoming distraught and despondent upon receiving a letter that
appeared to contain anthrax. Her first reaction
was to call William C. Patrick III, who calmed her down and told her that the anthrax powder contained in the letter "was most
likely a hoax." Indeed, Patrick would prove correct in his analysis as the powder in the letter Miller had opened was, in fact, harmless.
Kadlec quickly began contributing to the FBI's controversial investigation into the attacks, known by its case name "Amerithrax."
Kadlec
was tasked with following up on the alleged presence of bentonite in the anthrax used in the attacks. Bentonite was never actually
found in any of the anthrax samples tested by the FBI, but claims that it had been found were used to link the anthrax used in the
attacks to Iraq's alleged use of bentonite in its biological weapons program, the very existence of which still lacked conclusive
evidence.
This erroneous claim was
first
mentioned to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz by Peter Jahrling, a Fort Detrick scientist, who claimed during a briefings
that the spores "appeared to have been treated" with a "particular chemical additive" resembling bentonite. Jahrling then added that
Iraq's government had used bentonite to "suspiciously" produce bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a "nonlethal cousin" of anthrax
widely used in agriculture. "Everyone grabbed
on to that," Kadlec would later remember of Jahrling's haphazard link between bentonite and a harmless, distant cousin of anthrax.
Tasked by Wolfowitz with shoring up evidence for the bentonite "smoking gun," Kadlec
would
contact a Navy scientist that had accompanied him and William Patrick to Iraq in their unsuccessful efforts to find proof of
Iraq's biological weapons back in 1994, James Burans. Burans was unconvinced of the bentonite connection and other government scientists
soon agreed.
Nonetheless, media outlets continued to play up the bentonite-anthrax claim as proving Iraq's role in the anthrax attacks, despite
findings to the contrary. By late October 2001, one nationwide poll
found
that 74% of respondents wanted the U.S. to take military action against Iraq, despite a lack of evidence connecting the country
to either 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. A month later, Rumsfeld
would draw up plans in consultation with Wolfowitz
regarding justifications for initiating war with Iraq, including discovering links between Saddam Hussein and the anthrax attacks
and initiating disputes with Iraq over WMD inspections.
While the Kadlec-advised Pentagon was seeking to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq, the NTI – headed by Dark Winter "president"
Sam Nunn – kicked its agenda into over-drive,
earmarking "$2.4 million in initial grants to finance scientific collaboration with scientists who once worked in the former
Soviet Union's covert biological weapons program." NTI also set aside millions more for transforming former Soviet Union bioweapons
labs into "vaccine production facilities" and "helping identify Western drug companies willing to work with former Soviet bioweaponeers
on commercial ventures."
CLOSED DOOR INVESTIGATION
William C. Patrick III would also become involved the FBI's Amerithrax investigation, even though he was initially suspected of
involvement in the attacks. However, after having passed a lie detector test, he was
added to the FBI's "inner circle"
of technical advisors on the Amerithrax case, despite the fact that Patrick's
protege , Stephen Hatfill, was the FBI's top
suspect at the time. Hatfill was later cleared of wrongdoing and the FBI eventually blamed a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Ivins
for the crime, hiding a "mountain" of evidence exonerating Ivins to do so,
according
to the FBI's former lead investigator.
In the 1990s, Patrick had told associates of his desire to find someone who would carry on his work, eventually finding this person
in Stephen Hatfill. Hatfill and Patrick's friendship was close, with one bioterror expert
calling them "like father and son." Hatfill
traveled together often and, on occasion, Hatfill would drive Patrick to his consulting jobs at the military and intelligence contractor
SAIC. In 1999, Patrick would return the favor by helping Hatfill score a job at SAIC. A year later, Jerome Hauer, a friend to both
Hatfill and Patrick, would join
SAIC as a Vice President.
That same year, Hatfill offered Patrick another consulting job at SAIC and commissioned Patrick to perform a study describing
"a fictional terrorist attack in which an envelope containing weapons-grade anthrax is opened in an office."
The Baltimore Sun
would later report that Patrick's study for SAIC discussed the "danger of anthrax spores spreading through the air and the
requirements for decontamination after various kinds of attacks" as well as how many grams of anthrax would need to be placed within
a standard business envelope in order to conduct such an attack.
Patrick's involvement in this SAIC study is particularly interesting given that he was also involved in another project involving
anthrax at the time, this one managed by Battelle Memorial Institute. In 1997, the Pentagon created plans to genetically engineer
a more potent variety of anthrax, spurred
by the work of Russian scientists who had recently published a study that found that a genetically engineered strain of anthrax
was resistant to the standard anthrax vaccine, at least in animal studies.
The stated goal of the Pentagon's plan,
per a 2001
report in The New York Times , was "to see if the [anthrax] vaccine the United States intends to supply to its armed forces
is effective against that strain." Battelle's facility at West Jefferson, Ohio was contracted by the Pentagon to create the genetically-modified
anthrax, a task that was overseen by
Battelle's
then-program manager for all things bioweapons, Ken Alibek.
A 1998 article in the New Yorker
noted that William Patrick, also a consultant for Battelle and Alibek's "close friend," was working with Alibek on a project
involving anthrax at the time. It would later be revealed that access to the very anthrax strain used in the attacks, the Ames strain,
was controlled by Battelle.
In addition, the FBI's supposed "smoking gun" used to link Bruce Ivins' to the anthrax attacks was the fact that a flask in Ivins'
lab labeled RMR-1029 was determined to be its "parent" strain. Yet, it would
later be revealed that portions of RMR-1029 had been sent by Ivins to Battelle's Ohio facility prior to the anthrax attacks.
An analysis of the water used to make the anthrax also revealed that the anthrax spores had been created in the northeastern
United States and follow-up analyses narrowed down the only possible sources as coming from one of three labs: Fort Detrick, a lab
at the University of Scranton, or Battelle's West Jefferson facility.
After Ivins' untimely "suicide" in 2008, Department of Justice civil attorneys
would publicly challenge the FBI's assertions that Ivins had been the culprit and instead "suggested that a private laboratory
in Ohio" managed by Battelle "could have been involved in the attacks."
Patrick's work with Battelle on creating a more potent form of anthrax, as well as his work with SAIC in studying the effect of
anthrax sent through the mail, began around the same time that BioPort had secured a monopoly over the production of the anthrax
vaccine, recently made mandatory for all U.S. troops by the Pentagon. As detailed in
Part II of this series, BioPort's facility that produced its anthrax vaccine was, at the time, rife with problems and had lost
its license to operate. Despite the Pentagon having given BioPort millions to use for renovations of the factory, much of that money
instead went towards senior management bonuses and redecorating executive offices. Millions more simply "disappeared."
In 2000, not long after receiving its first Pentagon bail-out,
BioPort contracted none other than
Battelle Memorial Institute. The deal gave Battelle "immediate exposure to the vaccine" it was using in connection with the genetically-modified
anthrax program that involved both Alibek and Patrick. That program then began using the BioPort-manufactured vaccine in tests at
its West Jefferson facility. At the time, Battelle was also lending "technical expertise" to BioPort and hired 12 workers to send
to BioPort's troubled Michigan facility "to keep the operation running."
At the time, a BioPort spokeswomen stated "We have a relationship with Battelle to extend our reach for people we are trying to
attract for critical positions on our technical side. They're also assisting with our potency testing as really sort of a backup.
They're validating our potency tests." Reports on the BioPort-Battelle contract
stated that the terms of their
agreement were not publicly disclosed, but also noted that the two companies had "previously worked together on an unsuccessful bid
to make other vaccines for the government."
As previously noted in
Part II of this series, BioPort was set to lose its contract for anthrax vaccine entirely in August 2001 and the entirety of
its anthrax vaccine business was rescued by the 2001 anthrax attacks, which saw concerns over BioPort's corruption replaced with
fervent demands for more of its anthrax vaccine.
RUMSFELD SAVES BIOPORT
One of the post-attack advocates for salvaging the BioPort anthrax vaccine contract was Donald Rumsfeld,
who stated after the attacks that, "We're going
to try to save it, and try to fashion some sort of an arrangement whereby we give one more crack at getting the job done with that
outfit [BioPort]. It's the only outfit in this country that has anything under way, and it's not very well under way, as you point
out."
While Rumsfeld and others worked to salvage the troubled BioPort-anthrax vaccine deal, another recurrent figure in this sordid
saga, Jerome Hauer, would also play
a key role in pushing for increased purchases of BioPort's most lucrative and most controversial product. In addition to being
managing director of Kroll Inc. and a Vice President at SAIC, Hauer was also a national security advisor to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson
on September 11, 2001. It was also this same day that Hauer would also tell top administration officials to take Cipro to prevent
anthrax infection.
Hauer played a key role advising HHS leadership as the anthrax attacks unfolded. After the attacks, Hauer
pushed Thompson to create the Office of Public Health Preparedness (OPHP) within HHS, which was created later that year. It was
first headed by D.A. Henderson, a close associate of Joshua Lederberg and
the original founder of the Johns
Hopkins Working Group on Civilian Biodefense, which included Jerome Hauer and Henderson's protege Tara O'Toole. Hauer himself would
come to replace Henderson as OPHP just a few months later.
Subsequent legislation, shaped in part by Robert Kadlec, would see OPHP give way to the position of Assistant Secretary for Public
Health Emergency Preparedness (ASPHEP), a position Hauer would also fill. Hauer would use this post to push for the stockpiling of
vaccines, including BioPort's anthrax vaccine. Hauer and his deputy, William Raub, would then
help push
the Pentagon to restart vaccinating the troops, despite long-standing concerns over the vaccine's safety. Soon after leaving
HHS in 2004, Hauer would quickly be added to the board of directors of BioPort under its new name Emergent Biosolutions, a post he
still holds today.
ALL SYSTEMS GO
In the aftermath of the anthrax attacks, Robert Kadlec's doomsday predictions for bioterror incidents went into over-drive. "It's
not your mother's smallpox," Kadlec
would tell the LA Times in late October 2001, "It's an F-17 Stealth fighter – it's designed to be undetectable and to kill. We are flubbing our efforts
at biodefense. We don't think of this as a weapon – we look naively at this as a disease." As the article notes, this "stealth fighter"
strain of smallpox did not exist. Instead, Kadlec – who now had Rumsfeld's ear on issues of biodefense – expected that such a strain
might soon be genetically engineered.
Of course, at the time, the only government known to be genetically engineering a pathogen was the U.S.,
as reported by the New York Times ' Judith Miller . Miller reported in October 2001 that the Pentagon, in the wake of
the anthrax attacks, had approved "a project to make a potentially more potent form of anthrax bacteria" through genetic modification,
a project that would be conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute.
This was the continuation of the project, which had involved William Patrick and Ken Alibek, and the Pentagon moved to restart
it after the attacks, though it is unclear if either Patrick or Alibek continued to work on the subsequent iteration of Battelle's
efforts to produce a more virulent strain of anthrax. That project was paused a month prior when Miller and other journalists disclosed
the existence of the program in
an article
published on September 4, 2001.
After news broke of the Pentagon's plans to again begin developing more potent anthrax strains,
accusations were made that the U.S.
was violating the bioweapons convention. However, the U.S. narrowly avoided having to admit it had violated the convention given
that, just one month after the Dark Winter exercise in July 2001, the U.S.
had rejected an agreement that would
have enforced its ban on biological weapons.
The New York Times noted specifically
that the genetically-modified anthrax experiments being performed by Battelle's West Jefferson facility were a "significant reason"
behind the Bush administration's decision to reject the draft agreement and the U.S. government had
argued at the time that "unlimited
visits to pharmaceutical or defense installations by foreign inspectors could be used to gather strategic or commercial intelligence."
Of course, one of those "pharmaceutical or defense installations" was ultimately the source of the anthrax used in the attacks.
THE GROUNDWORK
On the heels of the chaos of late 2001, Kadlec's vision for U.S. biodefense policy was rapidly coming to fruition before his very
eyes. The first enabling statute for the SNS was the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002, largely motivated
by the anthrax attacks, which directed the Secretary of HHS to maintain a "
Strategic National Stockpile (SNS)." The legislation
had been the direct result of a process begun years earlier when Congress earmarked funding for the CDC to stockpile pharmaceuticals
in 1998. The program was originally called the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (NPS) program.
Kadlec's role in directing subsequent developments in the SNS and other related legislative developments was considerable given
that, in 2002, he became director for
biodefense on the recently created Homeland Security Council. His work on the council, which he left in 2005, resulted in the Bush
administration's "National Biodefense Policy for the 21st Century," which unsurprisingly echoed the recommendations of the paper
Kadlec had sponsored at the National War College.
On March 1, 2003, the NPS became the Strategic National Stockpile program and was managed jointly by DHS and HHS after George
W. Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-5). Two days before, Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge and
then Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson had presented the Project BioShield Act to Congress. It was a sweeping piece of legislation
that established what would become a government money teller-window for Big Pharma, called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority (BARDA), among other entities and powers, not least of which was moving control of the SNS away from DHS and closer to
HHS.
Soon after BioShield was signed into law, BioPort/Emergent BioSolutions
co-founded a lobby group called the Alliance for Biosecurity as part of its strategy to easily secure lucrative BioShield contracts.
That lobby group saw Emergent BioSolutions join forces with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Biosecurity, which
was then-led by Tara O'Toole and advised by Randall Larsen.
With this framework in place, the Kadlec-drafted National Biodefense Policy for the 21st Century was used as the framework for
Bush's Homeland Security Presidential Directive 10 ( HSPD-10
), which further expanded BioShield, the SNS and other controversial programs. Project BioShield was made law in 2004 and, one
year later, Kadlec joined Senator Richard Burr's subcommittee on bioterrorism and public health. There, Kadlec served as staff director
on the committee that drafted the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), containing the specific policy directives for
the roll out of Project BioShield and creating Kadlec's future position at HHS.
PAHPA was passed the following year in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and established the statutory relationship between the
various agencies enacted or included in the
BioShield legislation . This includes
delegating to the newly creation position of HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) to "exercise the responsibilities
and authorities of the Secretary [of HHS] with respect to the coordination of "the stockpile and to oversee the advanced research
and development of medical counter-measures funded by BARDA, but conducted by Big Pharma. ASPR was also given the leadership role
in directing HHS' response to a national health emergency.
Serving alongside Kadlec in the White House throughout this entire process was Tevi Troy, a Special Assistant to the President
for Domestic Policy; a role which made him the White House's lead adviser on health care, labor, education and other issues with
a special focus on crisis management . Troy, who had come
up through the department of labor as
deputy assistant for policy was already a Senior fellow at both the Hudson Institute and its satellite think tank, the Potomac
Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS), where the real policy development work was undertaken.
Both Troy and Kadlec would exit the administration at the end of Bush's first term and not return until the latter half of his
second term. In the meantime, the wheels had been set in motion with the passing of Project BioShield and PAHPA and, soon after their
passage, panic over a "Bird flu" outbreak began, which had spread first in 33 cities in Vietnam and then led to an outbreak of the
poultry-killing disease that affected all of Eurasia, Africa and the Middle East. The outbreak
sparked panic in the U.S. in late 2005, thanks
in large part to over-the-top warnings made
by Tommy Thompson's successor as head of HHS, Michael Leavitt.
Despite the fact that Leavitt's claims were wildly inaccurate, some administration officials benefited financially from the fear-mongering,
such as Donald Rumsfeld, whose stock holdings in the pharmaceutical company Gilead
netted him $5 million once the scare had ended. Part of the reason for Gilead's jump in profitability resulted from the decision
of the Pentagon and other U.S. government agencies to stockpile 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a drug promoted to treat the Bird Flu
that was originally developed by Gilead. Rumsfeld had been the top executive at Gilead before joining the George W. Bush administration.
Aside from those who benefited monetarily, the Bird Flu scare also gave a considerable boost to the biodefense "stockpile" agenda
that Kadlec and other insiders supported.
Kadlec would return to the White House as Special Assistant for Homeland Security and Senior Director for Biological Defense Policy
in 2007 to further solidify his eventual grip on the Strategic National Stockpile and the office of ASPR, along with his Hudson Institute/PIPS
sidekick, Tevi Troy, concurrently appointed Deputy Director of HHS. This put Troy in charge of implementing the very policies enshrined
in PAHPA and the departmental changes enacted as part of Project BioShield.
The Bush administration came to its inevitable conclusion as Barack Obama was elected and sworn in, early 2009. Kadlec and Troy,
once again, left their government posts and disappeared into their private sector lairs. But, that same year, the first practice
run for Kadlec's freshly retrofitted SNS took place when the "Swine Flu" (H1N1) pandemic
triggered its "largest deployment"
ever, distributing nearly 13 million antiviral regimens, as well as medical equipment and other drugs nationally and internationally
in conjunction with BARDA . Gilead (and Rumsfeld)
again profited
handsomely, as did other large pharmaceutical companies, which were eager to restock the SNS after its large-scale deployment.
The virus' origins have been a matter of controversy for several years, alternatively identified as having sprung from pigs in
Mexico or Asia. One of the last studies
conducted in 2016 claims to have definitively traced the source to hogs in Mexico. Regardless of its true origins,
interested observers were able to glean vital data
from the exercise to prepare for the "next one."
TROY'S HORSES
Departing HHS Deputy Director Tevi Troy soon took a gig as a
high-powered lobbyist for the JUUL e-cigarette company , which had run into some regulatory barriers as a result of the Tobacco
Control Act, which had just been signed by then-President Obama. Margaret Hamburg,
founding member of the NTI, was
then Commissioner of the FDA and
stalled enforcement of the new regulations; a tacit non-enforcement policy had persisted at the FDA until the recent vaping flavor
ban, which followed renewed health concerns raised by
a 2018 NIH report .
Why a former HHS official would take up the mantle to promote the use of a product known to be injurious to health can be answered
by looking at Dr. Troy's close links with PIPS and the Hudson Institute. Couched in free-market rhetoric, these institutions are
vehicles for the policy initiatives their billionaire funders want to see implemented, with its subsidiary think tanks, like PIPS,
serving as satellites orbiting closer to the center of power.
As an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute
and senior fellow at PIPS, Tevi Troy appears to play a pivotal role coordinating between the two. The Hudson Institute was founded
in 1961 by former RAND military strategist, systems theorist and Dr. Strangelove inspiration Herman Kahn. After Kahn's passing in
1983, the Institute was "heavily recruited" by the Lilly Endowment –
the largest private foundation in the United States , by far – and became a magnet for the same radical conservative billionaire
networks that patronize it today.
Among its biggest donors are familiar names like Microsoft, Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Charles Koch Foundation, Boeing and
Emergent BioSolutions. In 2004, Lilly Endowment returned to Washington D.C., announcing it would "
return to its roots
of national security and foreign policy " as a result of the war on terror becoming an "overarching national concern".
PIPS and the Hudson Institute would come to play a central role in Kadlec's upcoming efforts to make biodefense a national priority
with him at the helm of a vastly expanded office of ASPR. But, it would be a few years yet. Meanwhile, there was more to be done
in the area of legislation, not to mention private enterprise.
Building on all previous versions of Kadlec's original PAHPA, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA)
of 2013 established two more instruments that strengthened his ultimate goal. First, the PHEMCE Strategy and Implementation Plan
(SIP) was codified into law, which formalized the original legislation's ties to the budget office and secondly, it streamlined the
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) facility for the FDA to fast-track drug approvals.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
Soon upon returning to the private sector, Robert Kadlec helped found a new company in 2012 called "East West Protection," which
develops and delivers "integrated all-hazards preparedness and response systems for communities and sovereign nations." The company
also "advises communities and countries on issues related to the threat of weapons of mass destruction and natural pandemics."
Kadlec formed the company with W. Craig Vanderwagen,
the first HHS ASPR after the post's creation had been largely orchestrated by Kadlec. The
other co-founder of East West Protection was Fuad
El-Hibri, the founder of BioPort/Emergent Biosolutions, who had just stepped down as Emergent's CEO earlier that year.
El-Hibri has numerous business connections to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where he and his father, Ibrahim El-Hibri, had
once sold stockpiles of anthrax vaccine to the Saudi government for
an exorbitant price per dose. East West Protection chased after the opportunity to fit the Kingdom with a custom-built biodefense
system, but ultimately failed to finalize the deal despite El-Hibri's connections. Instead, East West Protection
sold its products to a handful of U.S. states.
Kadlec was
the firm's director from its founding
until
at least 2015 , later selling his stake in the company to El-Hibri. Upon being nominated to serve as ASPR in the Trump administration,
Kadlec failed to disclose his ties to East West Protection and El-Hibri and he has since claimed to only have been involved in the
founding of the firm,
despite
evidence to the contrary .
Robert Kadlec's forays into the private sector during this period went far beyond East West Protection. Kadlec's consultancy firm,
RPK Consulting, netted him in $451,000 in 2014 alone, where he
directly advised Emergent Biosolutions as well as other pharmaceutical companies like Bavarian Nordic. Kadlec was
also a consultant
to military and intelligence contractors, such as the
DARPA-backed firm Invincea and NSA contractor Scitor, which was
recently acquired
by SAIC.
Kadlec's consulting work for intelligence-linked companies earned him the praises of spooks turned entreprenuers, including Steve
Cash – a former CIA officer and founder of Deck Prism , itself
a consultancy firm that retained Kadlec. Cash
recently told The Washington Post that "Everybody loves Dr. Bob [Kadlec]," adding that he was a "national treasure."
ON BIOWARFARE'S EVE
Kadlec had certainly been accumulating a treasure chest of power aided by some very cozy relationships in the consulting business
and, by now, the stage had been set for a big push to create an official body within the halls of the legislature; an embedded consultancy
firm, of sorts, to promote the designs of the biowarfare clique.
That year, Robert Kadlec put together a Blue Ribbon Study Panel sponsored jointly by the Hudson Institute and a PIPS subsidiary
institution called the Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies ( IUCTS
), managed by Dr. Yonah Alexander. Kadlec's Blue Ribbon Panel was chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman and included the indispensable
input of Tom Daschle, Donna Shalala and other members of the biowarfare policy club.
The study panel issued a report in late 2015 entitled "
A National Blueprint for
Biodefense " calling for 33 specific initiatives, such as the creation of a "
biodefense hospital system " and
implementing a "military-civilian collaboration for biodefense." In addition, the panel recommended that the office of the Vice President
lead a White House "Coordination Council" to oversee and guide biodefense policy.
An official body called the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense
would be formed shortly thereafter with all the Blue Ribbon Panel members and many others like Commission co-chair Tom Ridge
and, perhaps unsurprisingly, Tevi Troy and Yonah Alexander, who serve as Ex-officio members. Alongside them is Lewis "Scooter" Libby,
former Chief of Staff to Dick Cheney and Senior Vice President of the Hudson Institute, which also happens to be the fiscal sponsor
of the Commission.
In the acknowledgements
, the panel's 2015 report includes an homage to Robert Kadlec to whom they bestow credit for the achievement, which only "exists
because of the foresight, forbearance, and perpetual optimism of Dr. Robert Kadlec. Bob understood that as much progress as had been
made in the national effort to prevent and prepare for biological threats, it is not yet enough. He knew that with the right impetus,
we could do much more, and he envisioned this Panel as a means to that end. We are glad he did."
Kadlec mounted this last offensive while serving as Deputy Staff Director for Senator Richard Burr's Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, a position he would hold until the eve of Donald Trump's election in 2016. Trump would then nominate him to the office
of the ASPR and Kadlec would be confirmed in early August of the following year.
Only one piece of the puzzle was left, but it wouldn't be very long before Robert Kadlec would become the biggest capo of them
all with a subtle change that was introduced in the
2018 PAHPRA :
Title III – Sec 301
1) DELEGATION TO ASPR. -- Subsection (a)(1) of section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–6b) is amended
by striking ''in collaboration with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention'' and inserting ''acting through
the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.''
This book is not exactly a novelty, but we already warned that we were going to undertake
this trip without consulting schedules. Our imaginary about the Second World War is
essentially nourished by images and scenes from the great Hollywood film productions. How
much or how little we know about those years that devastated the world is always mediated -
interfered, perhaps - by the narratives projected on the big screen. Hollywood has imposed
the story of World War II.
The Normandy landing, on D-Day, is represented as the turning point of a war that
Americans have resorted to to save Europe from Nazism. The American soldier, who misses his
family, whom he feels very far, steps on the floor of the Old Continent with the gesture of
a hero, when he intervenes in a war that is not his own, but that due to a moral
imperative, motivated by his altruism, he is forced to participate. And to win. In the
final scene, the US raises the flag of victory, like the army that has liberated Europe.
This is the story that the US has built about World War II and that the Hollywood film
industry, as a good propaganda apparatus, has been in charge of popularizing.
Of course, there remain dark places on which the historian Jacques R. Pauwels sheds
light in "The Myth of the Good War". The presence of the United States in World War II
differs from myth. First of all, their participation is late, since at first it was not
even clear who their enemy would be. The US would choose its enemy from whomever it was
most debilitating from the clashes between the Nazis and the Soviets. He never ruled out an
alliance with Hitler. In fact, when it finally allied itself with the USSR, the North
American oligarchy, openly philophascist and with important business going on with Nazi
Germany, believes that their country has made the wrong enemy.
The truth is that neither the entry of the United States into the war was decisive nor
the landing of Normandy marked a before and after in the victory of the allies. When the
United States enters as a belligerent force in the conflict, it does so because it sees as
very likely the worst scenario ever imagined: that the USSR emerged from the Second World
War as the sole winner of Nazism. A scenario that would leave the Americans in an
unfavorable geopolitical position. Similarly, Pauwels points out that "the purpose of the
landing in Normandy was to allow Western allies to reach Berlin before the Red Army". And
he adds that the triumph of that battle did not depend exclusively on the American military
potential, but on a Soviet offensive that prevented the Germans from transferring troops
from the eastern front to France. No heroics or altruism. This is only one of the episodes
referred to, and clarified, by Jacques Pauwels in "The Myth of the Good War". An essential
book to dispute the relate of History. For historians and for those who do not want their
past stolen. For those who do not want others continue telling them movies.
> He will go down as The most corrupt president in history! Spied on an opponents
campaign Authorised the intelligence agencies to spy Leaker Collided with Russia
Our Fakenews networks conspired with Obama, Obama's previous Cabinet, Hillary, the CIA,
FBI, NSA, DNC, and Democrats in Congress. They were all in on it together. #Sedition #Treason
ex-president Obummer biggest legacy to the democratic world is allowing China to claim all
of the South China Sea by turning a blind eye whilst China was dredging the sea beds and
creating artificial islands all over the South China sea!!
Obama was an America hater from day one, and committed many treasons public and private.
His "legacy" is and was a fabrication of the MSM, who tolerated no end of abuses, including
Obama suing a number of journalists.
But let's just look at one item, underplayed by the MSM: Obama did everything he could to
stop the 9/11 victims bill, including a presidential veto, which was then overridden by a
gigantic (97-1) senate vote.
McCain and Graham continued to fight the LAW, undoubtedly with Obama help, using Arab
funded lawyers to the tune of 1.2 million dollars per month.
So-called "experts" are too narrow in their focus and too often wrong in their
judgments to be able to decide the sorts of life-and-death issues a nation's political leaders
are asked to decide. If " War is too important to be left to the generals ," as
Georges Clemenceau, (France's prime minister during World War I) claimed, then foreign policy
is too important to be left to the intelligence agencies, and public policy is too important to
be left to the scientists.
From the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, politicians and media fell over themselves in their
rush to defer to the " experts. " Apparently, it was up to scientists to decide
whether a country should shut down its economy and keep its citizens locked up in their homes
in perpetuity. It was up to scientists to determine whether a country can, if ever, resume
normal life. As for the consequences -- economic depression, exploding national debt, lost
businesses and means of livelihood, growing alcoholism and drug abuse, rise in suicides,
spiraling untreated medical problems -- those are things the public would just have to live
with, because there could be no second-guessing of the scientists.
On the one side, figures allied to American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's vision for
an anti-Imperial world order lined up behind FDR's champion Harry Dexter White while those
powerful forces committed to maintaining the structures of a bankers' dictatorship (Britain was
always primarily a banker's empire) lined up behind the figure of John Maynard Keynes[
1 ].
John Maynard Keynes was a leading Fabian Society controller and treasurer of the British
Eugenics Association (which served as a model for Hitler's Eugenics protocols before and during
the war). During the Bretton Woods Conference, Keynes pushed hard for the new system to be
premised upon a one world currency controlled entirely by the Bank of England known as the
Bancor. He proposed a global bank called the Clearing Union to be controlled by the Bank of
England which would use the Bancor (exchangeable with national currencies) and serve as unit of
account to measure trade surpluses or deficits under the mathematical mandate of maintaining
"equilibrium" of the system.
Harry Dexter White, on the other hand, fought relentlessly to keep the City of London out of
the drivers' seat of global finance and instead defended the institution of national
sovereignty and sovereign currencies based on long term scientific and technological
growth.
Although White and FDR demanded that US dollars become the reserve currency in the new world
system of fixed exchange rates, it was not done to create a "new American Empire" as most
modern analysts have assumed, but rather was designed to use America's status as the strongest
productive global power to ensure an anti-speculative stability among international currencies
which entirely lacked stability in the wake of WWII.
Their fight for fixed exchange rates and principles of "parity pricing" were designed by FDR
and White strictly around the need to abolish the forms of chaotic flux of the un-regulated
markets which made speculation rampant under British Free Trade and destroyed the capacity to
think and plan for the sort of long term development needed to modernize nation states. Theirs
was not a drive for "mathematical equilibrium" but rather a drive to "end poverty" through REAL
physical economic growth of colonies who would thereby win real economic independence.
As figures like Henry Wallace (FDR's loyal Vice President and 1948 3rd party candidate),
Representative Wendell Wilkie (FDR's republican lieutenant and New Dealer), and Dexter White
all advocated repeatedly, the mechanisms of the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations were meant
to become drivers of an internationalization of the New Deal which transformed America from a
backwater cesspool in 1932 to becoming a modern advanced manufacturing powerhouse 12 years
later. All of these Interntional New Dealers were loud advocates of US-Russia –China
leadership in the post war world which is a forgotten fact of paramount importance.
It is vital to the United States, it is vital to China and
it is vital to Russia that there be peaceful and friendly relations between China and Russia,
China and America and Russia and America. China and Russia Complement and supplement each other
on the continent of Asia and the two together complement and supplement America's position in
the Pacific.
Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR's assistant Francis Perkins
recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her:
"I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a
mathematician rather than a political economist."
In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal
stated he had "supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking."
In his 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
, Keynes wrote:
For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded
mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless,
the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much
more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.
While Keynes represented the "soft imperialism" for the "left" of Britain's intelligentsia,
Churchill represented the hard unapologetic imperialism of the Old, less sophisticated empire
that preferred the heavy fisted use of brute force to subdue the savages. Both however were
unapologetic racists and fascists (Churchill even wrote admiringly of Mussolini's black shirts)
and both represented the most vile practices of British Imperialism.
FDR's Forgotten
Anti-Colonial Vision Revited
FDR's battle with Churchill on the matter of empire is better known than his differences
with Keynes whom he only met on a few occasions. This well documented clash was best
illustrated in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt's book As He Saw It (1946) who quoted his
father:
I've tried to make it clear that while we're [Britain's] allies and in it to victory
by their side, they must never get the idea that we're in it just to help them hang on to their
archaic, medieval empire ideas I hope they realize they're not senior partner; that we are not
going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half
the countries in Europe to boot.
[ ]
The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all
the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like
education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements – all you're doing is
storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you're doing is negating the value of any
kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.
Writing from Washington in a hysteria to Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that
Roosevelt "contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires."
Unfortunately for the world, FDR died on April 12, 1945. A coup within the Democratic
establishment, then replete with Fabians and Rhodes Scholars, had already ensured that Henry
Wallace would lose the 1944 Vice Presidency in favor of Anglophile Wall Street Stooge Harry
Truman.
Truman was quick to reverse all of FDR's intentions, cleansing American intelligence of all
remaining patriots with the shutdown of the OSS and creation of the CIA, the launching of
un-necessary nuclear bombs on Japan and establishment of the Anglo-American special
relationship.
Truman's embrace of Churchill's New World Order destroyed the positive relationship with
Russia and China which FDR, White and Wallace sought and soon America had become Britain's dumb
giant.
The Post 1945 Takeover of the Modern Deep State
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is
to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to clean
out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as
the Deep State [ ] Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon
imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and
writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and
intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission, Wallace said:
Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III.
These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as
in war.
Indeed this is exactly what occurred. Dexter White's three year run as head of the
International Monetary Fund was clouded by his constant attacks as being a Soviet stooge which
haunted him until the day he died in 1948 after a grueling inquisition session at the House of
Un-American Activities.
White had previously been supporting the election of his friend Wallace for the presidency
alongside fellow patriots Paul Robeson and Albert Einstein.
Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the FDR's
dream of an anti-colonial world . In the 21st century, this great dream has taken the form
of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China (and joined by a growing chorus of nations
yearning to exit the invisible cage of colonialism).
If western nations wish to survive the oncoming collapse, then they would do well to heed
Putin's call for a New International system, join the BRI, and reject the Keynesian technocrats
advocating a false "New Bretton Woods" and "Green New
Deal" .
[1] You may be thinking "wait! Wasn't FDR and his New Deal premised on Keynes' theories??"
How could Keynes have represented an opposing force to FDR's system if this is the case? This
paradox only exists in the minds of many people today due to the success of the Fabian
Society's and Round Table Movement's armada of revisionist historians who have consistently
created a lying narrative of history to make it appear to future generations trying to learn
from past mistakes that those figures like FDR who opposed empire were themselves following
imperial principles.
Another example of this sleight of hand can be seen by the sheer number of people who
sincerely think themselves informed and yet believe that America's 1776 revolution was driven
by British Imperial philosophical thought stemming from Adam Smith, Bentham and John Locke.
... symptoms such as fever, store throat and coughing to take antipyretics and stay at
home, but invite them to hospital and immediately start treatment by administering
chloroquine to the people in suspicious cases without waiting for the results from the test
results.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | May 16 2020 14:17 utc | 94
That would make Turkey a very interesting case to watch. Looking on worldometers.info,
Turkey is currently 9th from top in terms of case numbers with 146,457 cases, yet it has only
48 deaths per million, 36th on the list. Russia by comparison has only 17 deaths per million,
65th on the list, but has far higher quality medical care and abundant financial resources.
Turkey is not especially developed, has a large population with many poor, an extremely
serious economic crisis even before Covid, and many political crises. I can remember
suggestions a month or more ago that it could be a serious disaster zone for Covid. How come
it is doing so well? Maybe its treatment policies are worth looking at closely.
Compare USA, home to several key Big Pharma players, top of the charts with 1,487,076
cases, 83,603 deaths (more than the total number of cases that China ever had, most of whom
recovered), 268 deaths per million (currently 13th from top but rising fast). Is it any
wonder that the US death rate is higher?
Thomas Meaney debunks the
myth of Henry Kissinger:
Since leaving office, too, Kissinger has rarely challenged consensus, let alone offered
the kind of inconvenient assessments that characterized the later career of George Kennan,
who warned President Clinton against NATO expansion after the Soviet Union's collapse. It is
instructive to measure Kissinger's instincts against those of a true realist, such as the
University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer. As the Cold War ended,
Mearsheimer was so committed to the "balance of power" principle that he made the striking
suggestion of allowing nuclear proliferation in a unified Germany and throughout Eastern
Europe. Kissinger, unable to see beyond the horizon of the Cold War, could not imagine any
other purpose for American power than the pursuit of global supremacy.
Although he has criticized the interventionism of neoconservatives, there is scarcely a
U.S. military adventure, from Panama to Iraq, that has not met with his approval. In all his
meditations on world order, he has not thought about how contingent and unforeseen America's
rise as global superpower actually was. Nothing in the country's republican tradition prior
to the Second World War demanded it.
The contrast between the worldviews and careers of Kennan and Kissinger is instructive, and
it helps to explain why the Washington foreign policy consensus has gotten so many things wrong
over the decades. Meaney mentions that as early as 1965 Kissinger was privately admitting that
the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, but publicly he supported it and went on to preside over its
continuation and escalation for many years. During the same period, Kennan spoke out against
the war, and urged full withdrawal. Kennan famously said:
There is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous
liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant or
unpromising objectives.
Kissinger insisted on just the opposite: that the cynical and stubborn pursuit of
extravagant and unpromising objectives was necessary to prove American resolve. Kissinger
couldn't have been more wrong, as subsequent events showed beyond any doubt, but his profound
wrongness had little or no effect on his standing in the U.S. It is no accident that Kissinger
has repeatedly endorsed pursuing such objectives up to and including the invasion of Iraq. The
blunders that Kennan warned against and correctly foresaw would be
costly and wasteful are the same ones that Kissinger approved and defended.
Our government usually listens to and employs the Kissingers to make our foreign policy, and
it ignores and marginalizes the Kennans once they start saying inconvenient things. Kissinger
had great success in advancing himself, and he has continued to be a fixture in the foreign
policy establishment almost fifty years after he last served in government, because he knows
how to provide arguments that lend legitimacy to dubious and aggressive policies. He made bogus
claims about "credibility" in the '60s that helped to perpetuate one war, and later generations
of hawks have used the same claims to justify involvement in new ones. Despite all the evidence
that his "credibility" arguments were nonsense, Kissinger's reputation has bizarrely continued
to improve over time.
Meaney also compares Kissinger with Hans Morgenthau:
Like Kissinger, Morgenthau had become well known with a popular book about foreign policy,
"Politics Among Nations" (1948). And he shared Kissinger's belief that foreign policy could
not be left to technocrats with flowcharts and statistics. But, unlike Kissinger, Morgenthau
was unwilling to sacrifice his realist principles for political influence [bold mine-DL]. In
the mid-sixties, working as a consultant for the Johnson Administration, he was publicly
critical of the Vietnam War, which he believed jeopardized America's status as a great power,
and Johnson had him fired.
The different responses to Vietnam are telling. Kennan and Morgenthau could see very clearly
that U.S. intervention was unnecessary and senseless, and they said as much. Kissinger could
see the same thing, but he pretended otherwise to gain influence. U.S. foreign policy then and
later would have benefited greatly from having more honest assessments of irresponsible
policies and fewer cynical endorsements of unnecessary wars. If we are to learn anything from
Kissinger's example, it is that we should strive to be as unlike him as we can be.
Also, it is worth mentioning the Soviet diplomacy's response to Keenan's Long Telegram,
for parity:
http://www-personal.umd.umi...
While Mr. Larison has to / must continue his excellent work as a chronicler of US
imperial madness, his and his peers' advice will continue to be ignored (ideally this
advice would not even exist and no record of it would pass beyond government doors or
"respectable" opinionators because TINA) regardless of public opinion pools and election
promises and voting results.
Only a US societal quasi collapse, or the establishment of US as an endemic source of
Covid-19 (or similar diseases), or Saudis selling their oil for other currencies beside US
dollars, or a faster rising of ocean levels, or a full blown and rapid economic war and
disengagement with China will potentially re-balance things. But it might be too late, and
the US would have by then forgotten how to use certain intellectual tools the way
Australian Aborigines and Tasmanians have forgotten to make and use bows and arrows.
It's amusingly daft to describe the US as having engaged in imperial madness, but ludicrous
to assert that Australian Aborigines ever used bows and arrows.
Thanks for that. I have always had a vague awareness that HK was a problematic factor, but,
being preoccupied with the daily grind, never scrutinized the record much. This short
comparative piece is good for clarity. Perhaps the saddest thing of all, though, is that
after all these decades, the HK perspective has become accepted by the Neo- factions (cons?
libs? does it matter?) as a default position. Makes US seem like we're in the thrall of a
military-industrial complex or something.
In defense of Kissinger, he was skeptical of the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states and
was much more open to diplomacy with Russia than most hawks in the GOP. But you're right
that too often Kissinger was afraid to make waves by opposing military interventions.
https://www.washingtonpost....
Kissinger is an example that this old adage is true. "Only the Good Die Young". The devil
is waiting for him. Kissinger is responsible for murdering and torturing many.
Kissinger was a brilliant historian and diplomat, with deep insights into how the world
works. However he was also a careerist who was willing to bend his views to achieve and
stay in power. For better or worse, he shaped US foreign policy for many years, and
strongly influenced it for many more.
Kennan was also a brilliant historian and diplomat, who had a huge impact on US policy
with his Long Telegram. But once the policy was accepted, he had little influence over its
long-term implementation because he refused to compromise and work with (manipulate?)
lesser beings.
And today, our foreign policy is run by people who know little of the world and none of
its history, and could care less. But they are great at PR and political manipulation. I'll
take either Kissinger or Kennan over any of them. Whatever their flaws, at least they knew
what they were talking about
You are correct in your description of Kissinger as a "careerist". Unfortunately, unlike
Kissinger George Kennan never became SoS, so he never had the president's
"ear." Some would argue that Truman should have picked him over Dean Acheson to succeed
George Marshall. One can only wonder how history would have panned out.
....as early as 1965 Kissinger was privately admitting that the war in Vietnam was
unwinnable, but publicly he supported it and went on to preside over its continuation and
escalation for many years.
How could he stubbornly persist knowing that every day Americans were losing their lives
- for years. This guy must be a sociopath.
....as early as 1965 Kissinger was privately admitting that the war in Vietnam was
unwinnable, but publicly he supported it and went on to preside over its continuation and
escalation for many years.
How could he stubbornly persist knowing that every day Americans were losing their lives
- for years. This guy must be a sociopath.
"Wasn't completely honest"... mistress of understatements. She lied. The left's narrative
is imploding. Corrupt Ambassador, and the left whined when she was fired. Belongs in
prison... in Ukraine.
During the impeachment sham hearing, Yovanovitch said she had not recall anything about
the well known national scandal Burisma in Ukraine. Surprising, isn't it?
The entire Obama Administration was, for eight long years, a string of crimes and
cover-ups by the then President and all his partners in wrongdoings. When is Lady Justice
going to prevail?
Levada has done a survey of Russian youth and
that's pretty hard to find; in general they're not far off their parents: a bit more liberal
but also a bit more nationalist. Perhaps the most interesting result was that a solid majority
thought Russia was not European.
Robinson discusses. He wonders why so few show much support for "'classical' civil and
political liberties".
My guess is that 20 years of observation of Western practice of these
noble ideals has soured them.
al-Beeb s'Allah live news feed on their website Summary: Russia now has the third-highest
number of confirmed cases in the world, overtaking UK and Italy .
Three pages further on the live feed you can read:* Russia has confirmed 2,009 deaths
in total. You have to go to page four for the actual story @13:07 that links to the
summary to actual story details (there are no links in the summary at all!) to read taking
the total death toll to 2,009, which is far lower than the numbers reported in many other
countries. (my emphasis) *** So well below the UK's own tally of 32,000 heroic
deaths. That's good to know.
As others have pointed out, Russia has carried out the highest number of tests in u-Rope,
now greater than 4.5 million, which is only behind the US globally
Thank God there is the BBC to put things in to proper perspective in such a professional
way / sarc.
So the situation in Russia is 'bad'.
Hmm, tens of thousands of deaths in European countries ('Western' countries, on the whole),
doctors who have to wear "protective suits" from garbage bags, mass graves, calls to allow
the population to get sick in order to develop "collective immunity" (in fact, voluntary
consent to screening (=death) of a part of the population with such natural selection)... but
it is Russia where the situation is 'bad', and, as you said, "Europe looks to be moving
behind the epidemic". That's funny.
The situation in Russia is 'bad'... You are talking about a country where one of the
lowest mortality rates (thanks to well-thought-out, previously taken measures, as well as
reliable coordinated work of the medical system - a legacy of the Soviet system), where one
of the highest rates of population testing is carried out (the more infected people are
identified, the better), where dozens of spare modern medical centers have been built at the
moment (thanks to the excellent work of the Ministry of Defense). Where the
authorities offered the population one of the most impressive measures of social support
(one-time payments, payments for children, moratorium on penalties for housing and communal
services, zero bank credit for business, payments to medical workers, tax holidays, etc.).
The country, which is the world leader in providing ventilation devices - Russia has 26.6 (or
27.3 according to some estimates) devices per 100 thousand people (for comparison, in the USA
this indicator is 18.8 devices per 100 thousand people, and in Italy it is 8.3), and
produces/supplies them to dozens of other countries. And by the way, in Russia, a vaccine for
the COVID-19 may appear already in September (I recall that thanks to the Russian vaccine it
was possible to stop and defeat the Ebola epidemic in Africa).
Of course, the situation may change, including in Russia. Anything can happen. But I only
recall that at the moment Russia is not a country where it was necessary to withdraw the
military with weapons to the streets, or introduce a curfew. Do not forget this when you
write that this is Russia, where the situation is 'bad'.
On the other side, evidence has emerged that makes it clear there were organized efforts to
collude against candidate Donald Trump - and then President Trump. For example:
Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump
in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against
Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material--in
part--to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press,
including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and
politially-motivated "unmaskings" of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary
Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump's alleged Russia
ties.
But it's not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these
events.
(Please note that nobody cited has been charged with wrongdoing or crimes, unless the charge
is specifically referenced. Temporal relationships are not necessarily evidence of a
correlation.)
"Collusion against Trump" Timeline2011
U.S. intel community vastly expands its surveillance authority, giving itself permission to
spy on Americans who do nothing more than "mention a foreign target in a single, discrete
communication." Intel officials also begin storing and entering into a searchable database
sensitive intelligence on U.S. citizens whose communications are accidentally or "incidentally"
captured during surveillance of foreign targets. Prior to this point, such intelligence was
supposed to be destroyed to protect the constitutional privacy rights the U.S. citizens.
However, it's required that names U.S. citizens be hidden or "masked" --even inside U.S. intel
agencies --to prevent abuse.
July 1, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton improperly uses unsecured, personal email
domain to email President Obama from Russia.
2013
June 2013: FBI interviews U.S. businessman Carter Page, who's lived and worked in Russia,
regarding his ongoing contacts with Russians. Page reportedly tells FBI agents their time would
be better spent investigating Boston Marathon bombing (which the FBI's Andrew McCabe helped
lead). Page later claims his remark prompts FBI retaliatory campaign against him. The FBI,
under McCabe, will later wiretap Page after Page becomes a Donald Trump campaign adviser.
FBI secretly records suspected Russian industrial spy Evgeny Buryakov . It's later
reported that Page helped FBI build the case.
Sept. 4, 2013: James Comey becomes FBI Director, succeeding Robert Mueller.
2014
Russia invades Ukraine. Ukraine steps up hiring of U.S. lobbyists to make its case against
Russia and obtain U.S. aid. Russia also continues its practice of using U.S. lobbyists.
Ukraine forms National Anti-Corruption Bureau as a condition to receive U.S. aid. The
National Anti-Corruption Bureau later signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI related to
Trump-Russia probe.
Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa, a paid consultant for the Democratic National
Committee (DNC), begins researching lobbyist Paul
Manafort's Russia ties.
FBI investigates, and then wiretaps, Paul Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing
Russia-related work. FBI fails to make a case, according to CNN, and discontinues wiretap.
August 2014: State Dept. turns over 15,000 pages of documents to Congressional Benghazi
committee, revealing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton used private server for
government email. Her mishandling of classified info on this private system becomes subject of
FBI probe.
2015
FBI opens
investigation into Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, including for donations from a
Chinese businessman and Clinton Foundation donor.
FBI official Andrew McCabe meets with Gov. McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally. Afterwards,
"McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated about $700,000 to Mr. McCabe's wife for her
campaign to become a Democrat state Senator in Virginia." The fact of the McAuliffe-related
donations to wife of FBI's McCabe, while FBI was investigating McAuliffe and Clinton later
becomes the subject of
conflict of interest inquiry by Inspector General.
Feb. 9, 2015: U.S. Senate forms Ukrainian caucus to further Ukrainian interests. Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) is a member.
March 4, 2015: New York Times breaks news about Clinton's improper handling of classified
email as secretary of state.
In internal emails , Clinton campaign chairman (and
former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton's emails from Congressional
Benghazi committee under executive privilege.
March 2015: Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately directs FBI Director James Comey to
call FBI Clinton probe a "matter" rather than an "investigation." Comey follows the
instruction, though he later testifies that it made him
"queasy."
March 7, 2015: President Obama says he first learned of Clinton's improper email practices
"through news reports." Clinton campaign staffers privately
contradict that claim emailing: "it looks like [President Obama] just said he found out
[Hillary Clinton] was using her personal email when he saw it on the news." Clinton aide Cheryl
Mills responds, "We need to clean this up, [President Obama] has emails from" Clinton's
personal account.
May 19, 2015: Justice Dept. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik
emails
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta from a private Gmail account to give him a "heads ups"
involving Congressional questions about Clinton email.
Summer 2015: Democratic National Committee computers are hacked.
Sept. 2015: Glenn Simpson, co-founder of political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, is
hired by conservative website Washington Free Beacon to compile negative research on
presidential candidate Donald Trump and other Republicans.
Oct. 2015: President Obama uses a "confidentiality tradition" to keep his Benghazi emails
with Hillary Clinton secret.
Oct. 12, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at New York Field Office with Louis
Bladel.
Oct. 22, 2015: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
publicly states that Clinton is "not under criminal investigation."
Clinton testifies to House Benghazi committee.
Oct. 23, 2015: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta meets for dinner with small group of
friends including a top Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik.
Late 2015: Democratic operative Chalupa expands her
political opposition research about Paul Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. She
"occasionally shares her findings with officials from the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign."
Dec. 4, 2015: Donald Trump is beating his nearest Republican presidential competitor by 20
points in latest CNN poll .
Dec. 9, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at Washington Field Office with Charles
Kable.
Dec. 23, 2015: FBI Director Comey
names Bill Priestap as assistant director of Counterintelligence Division.
2016
Obama officials vastly expand their searches through NSA database for Americans and the
content of their communications. In 2013, there were 9,600 searches involving 195 Americans.
But in 2016, there are 30,355 searches of 5,288 Americans.
Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born ex-British spy leading anti-Trump
political opposition research project.
January 2016: Democratic operative Ukrainian-American Chalupa tells a
senior Democratic National Committee official that she feels there's a Russia connection with
Trump.
Jan. 29, 2016: FBI Director Comey promotes
Andrew McCabe to FBI Deputy Director.
McCabe takes lead on Clinton probe even though his wife received nearly $700,000 in campaign
donations through Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, who's also under FBI investigation.
March 2016: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's email gets hacked.
Carter Page is named
as one of the Trump campaign's foreign policy advisers.
March 2, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Intelligence Division of Washington Field Office with Gerald Roberts,
Jr.
March 11, 2016: Russian Evgeny Buryakovwhich pleads guilty to spying in FBI case that Carter
Page reportedly assisted with.
March 25, 2016: Ukrainian-American operative for Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chalupa
meets with top Ukrainian officials at Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. to "expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia," according to Politico. Chalupa
previously worked for the Clinton administration.
Ukrainian embassy proceeds to work "directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions," according
to an embassy official (though other officials later deny engaging in election-related
activities.)
March 29, 2016: Trump campaign hires Paul Manafort as manager of July Republican
convention.
March 30, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa briefs
Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff on Russia ties to Paul Manafort and Trump.
With "DNC's encouragement," Chalupa asks Ukrainian embassy to arrange meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to discuss Manafort's lobbying for Ukraine's former president Viktor
Yanukovych. The embassy declines to arrange meeting but becomes "helpful" in trading info and
leads.
Ukrainian embassy officials and Democratic operative Chalupa "coordinat[e] an investigation
with the Hillary team" into Paul Manafort, according to a source in Politico. This effort
reportedly includes working with U.S. media.
April 2016: There's a second breach of Democratic National Committee computers.
Washington Free Beacon
breaks off deal with Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS for political opposition research against
Trump.
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee lawyer Mark Elias and his law firm,
Perkins Coie, hire Fusion GPS for anti-Trump political research project.
Ukrainian member of parliament Olga Bielkova reportedly seeks meetings with
five dozen members of U.S. Congress and reporters including former New York Times reporter Judy
Miller, David Sanger of New York Times, David Ignatius of Washington Post, and Washington Post
editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.
April 5, 2016: Convicted spy Buryakov is turned over to Russia.
Week of April 6, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa and office of Rep.
Mary Kaptur (D-Ohio), co-chair of Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, discuss possible
congressional investigation or hearing on Paul Manafort-Russia "by September."
Chalupa begins working with investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, according to her later
account.
April 10, 2016: In national TV interview, President Obama states that Clinton did not intend
to harm national security when she mishandled classified emails. FBI Director James Comey later
concludes that Clinton should not face charges because she did not intend to harm national
security.
Around this time, the FBI begins drafting Comey's remarks closing Clinton email
investigation, though Clinton had not yet been interviewed.
April 12, 2016:" Ukrainian parliament member Olga Bielkova and a colleague meet"
with Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer with the McCain Institute. Bielkova also meets
with Liz Zentos of Obama's National Security Council, and State Department official Michael
Kimmage.
April 26, 2016: Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with a Russian oligarch.
April 27, 2016 : The BBC publishes
an article titled, "Why Russians Love Donald Trump."
April 28, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa is invited to discuss her
research about Paul Manafort with 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine at Library of
Congress for Open World Leadership Center, a U.S. congressional agency. Chalupa invites
investigative reporter Michael Isikoff to "connect(s) him to the Ukrainians."
After the event, reporter Isikoff accompanies Chalupa to Ukrainian embassy reception.
May 3, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa emails Democratic National Committee (DNC)
that she'll share
sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline" including "a big Trump component that will hit in
next few weeks."
May 4, 2016: Trump locks up Republican nomination.
May 19, 2016: Paul Manafort is named Trump campaign chair.
May 23, 2016: FBI probe into Virginia governor and Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe
becomes public. (McAuliffe is ultimately not charged with a crime.)
Justice Department Inspector General confirms it's looking into FBI's Andrew McCabe for
alleged conflicts of interest in handling of Clinton and Gov. McAuliffe probes in light of
McAuliffe directing campaign donations to McCabe's wife.
FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who are reportedly having an illicit affair, text
each other that Trump's ascension in the campaign will bring "pressure to finish" Clinton
probe.
Nellie Ohr, wife of Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr and former CIA
worker, goes on the payroll of Fusion GPS and assists with anti-Trump political opposition
research. Her husband, Bruce, reportedly fails to disclose her specific employer and work in
his Justice Dept. conflict of interest disclosures.
June 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson "
hires Yemen-born ex-British spy Christopher
Steele for anti-Trump political opposition research project."Steele uses info from Russian
sources "close to Putin" to compile unverified "dossier" later provided to reporters and FBI,
which the FBI uses to obtain secret wiretap.
The
Guardian and Heat Street report that the FBI applied for a FISA warrant in June 2016 to
"monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials"
but that the "initial request was denied."
June 7, 2016: Hillary Clinton locks up the Democrat nomination.
June 9, 2016: Meeting in Trump Tower includes Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner with Russian lawyer who said he has political
opposition research on Clinton. (No research was ultimately provided.) According to
CNN , the FBI has not yet restarted a wiretap against Manafort but will soon do so.
June 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) tells employees that its computer system
has been hacked. DNC blames Russia but refuses to let FBI examine its systems.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" publishes first hacked document from Clinton campaign chair
John Podesta.
June 17, 2016: Washington Post publishes front page story linking Trump to Russia: "Inside
Trump's Financial Ties to Russia and His Unusual Flattery of Vladimir Putin."
June 20, 2016: Christopher Steele
proposes taking some of Fusion GPS' research about Trump to FBI.
June 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing embarrassing, hacked emails from Clinton campaign
and Democratic National Committee.
June 27, 2016: Attorney General Loretta Lynch meets
privately with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.
Late June 2016: DCLeaks website begins publishing Democratic National Committee emails.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI and
will later publicly release a "ledger" implicating Paul Manafort in allegedly improper
payments.
June 30, 2016: FBI circulates internal draft of public remarks for FBI Director Comey to
announce closing of Clinton investigation. It refers to Mrs. Clinton's "extensive" use of her
personal email, including "from the territory of sophisticated adversaries," and a July 1, 2012
email to President Obama from Russia. The draft concludes it's possible that hostile actors
gained access to Clinton's email account.
Comey's remarks are revised to replace reference to "the President" with the phrase:
"another senior government official." (That reference, too, is removed from the final
draft.)
Attorney General Lynch tells FBI she plans to publicly announce that
she'll accept whatever recommendation FBI Director Comey makes regarding charges against
Clinton.
July 2016: Ukraine minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov attacks Trump and Trump
campaign adviser Paul Manafort on Twitter and Facebook, calling Trump "an even bigger danger to
the US than terrorism."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk writes on Facebook that Trump has
"challenged the very values of the free world."
Carter Page travels to Russia to give
a university commencement address. (Fusion GPS political opposition research would later quote
Russian sources as saying Page met with Russian officials, which Page denies under oath and is
not proven.)
One-time CIA operative Stefan Halper reportedly begins meetings with Trump advisers Carter
Page and George Papadopoulos, secretly gathering information for the FBI. These contacts begin
"prior to the date FBI Director Comey later claimed the Russian investigation began."
July 1, 2016: Under fire for meeting with former President Clinton amid the probe into his
wife, Attorney General Lynch publicly states she'll " accept
whatever FBI Director Comey recommends" without interfering.
FBI official Lisa Page texts her boyfriend, FBI official Peter Strzok, sarcastically
commenting that Lynch's proclamation is "a real profile in courage, since she knows no charges
will be brought."
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that he wants
to discuss "our favourite business tycoon!" (apparently referencing Trump.)
July 2, 2016: FBI official Peter Strzok and other agents interview Clinton. They don't
record the interview. Two potential subjects of the investigation, Cheryl Mills and Heather
Samuelson, are allowed to attend as Clinton's lawyers.
July 5, 2016: FBI Director Comey recommends no charges against Clinton, though he concludes
she's been extremely careless in mishandling of classified information. Comey claims he hasn't
coordinated or reviewed his statement in any way with Attorney General Lynch's Justice
Department or other government branches. "They do not know what I am about to say," says
Comey.
Fusion GPS' Steele, an ex-British spy,
approaches FBI at an office in Rome with allegations against Trump, according to
Congressional investigators. Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr schedules a Skype conference call
with Steele.
Days after closing Clinton case, FBI official Peter Strzok signs document opening FBI probe
into Trump-Russia collusion.
July 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) aide Seth Rich, reportedly a Bernie
Sanders supporter, is shot twice in the back and killed. Police suspect a bungled robbery
attempt, though nothing was apparently stolen. Conspiracy theorists speculate that Rich "not
the Russians" had stolen DNC emails after he learned the DNC was unfairly favoring Clinton. The
murder remains unsolved.
July 2016: Trump adviser Carter Page makes a business trip to Russia.
Obama national security adviser Susan Rice begins to show increased interest in National
Security Agency (NSA) intelligence material including "unmasked Americans" identities,
according to news reports referring to White House logs.
July 18-21, 2016: Republican National Convention
Late July 2016 : FBI agent Peter Strzok opens counterintelligence investigation based on
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Democratic operative and Ukrainian-American Chalupa leaves the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) to work full-time on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia; and provides
off-the-record guidance to "a lot of journalists."
July 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing hacked Democratic National Committee emails.
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange denies the email source is Russian.
July 25-28, 2016 : Democratic National Convention
July 30, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with ex-British spy Christopher
Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Ohr brings his wife, Nellie, who -- like Steele --
works at Fusion GPS on the Trump-Russia oppo research project. Ohr
calls FBI Deputy Director McCabe.
July 31, 2016 : FBI's Peter Strzok formally begins
counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia and Trump. It's dubbed "Crossfire
Hurricane."
Aug. 3, 2016: Ohr reportedly meets with
McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to discuss Russia-Trump collusion allegations relayed by
ex-British spy Steele. Ohr will later testify to Congress that he considered Steele's
information uncorroborated hearsay and that he told FBI agents Steele appeared motivated by a
"desperate" desire to keep Trump from becoming president.
Aug. 4, 2016: Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
Aug. 8, 2016: FBI attorney Lisa Page texts her lover, FBI's head of Counterespionage Peter
Strzok,"[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok replies,"No. No
he won't. We'll stop it."
Aug. 14, 2016: New York Times breaks story about cash payments made a decade ago to Paul
Manafort by pro-Russia interests in Ukraine. The ledger was released and publicized by the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
Aug. 15, 2016: CNN reports the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort's payments from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007 and 2009.
After a meeting discussing the election in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's office, FBI's
Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI attorney Lisa Page referring to the possibility
of Trump getting elected. "We can't take that risk," he writes. And they speak of needing an
"insurance policy."
Aug. 19, 2016: Paul Manafort resigns as Trump campaign chairman.
Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
Aug. 22, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson who
identifies several "possible intermediaries" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Late August 2016:
Reportedly working for the FBI, one-time CIA operative Professor Halper meets with Trump
campaign co-chair Sam Clovis offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, according to
The Washington Post. Halper would later offer to hire Carter Page.
Approx. Aug. 2016: FBI initiates a new
wiretap against ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, according to CNN, which extends at
least through early 2017.
Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Steele becomes FBI source and uses associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr as point of contact. Steele tells Ohr that he's "desperate that Donald Trump
not get elected."
President Obama
warns Russia not to interfere in the U.S. election
Sept. 2, 2016: FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text that "[President Obama] wants
to know everything we're doing."
Sept. 13, 2016 : The nonprofit First Draft, funded by Google, whose parent company is run by
major Hillary Clinton supporter and donor Eric Schmidt, announces initiative to tackle "fake
news." It appears to be the first use of the phrase in its modern context.
Sept. 15, 2016: Clinton computer manager Paul Combetta appears before House Oversight
Committee but refuses to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
Sept. 19, 2016: At UN General Assembly meeting, Ukrainian President Poroshenko meets with
Hillary Clinton.
Mid-to-late Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Christopher Steele's FBI contact tells him the agency
wants to see his opposition research "right away" and offers
to pay him $50,000, according to the New York Times, for solid corroboration of his salacious,
unverified claims. Steele
flies to Rome , Italy to meet with FBI and provide a "full briefing."
Sept. 22, 2016: Clinton computer aide Brian Pagliano is held in contempt of Congress for
refusing to comply with subpoena.
Sept. 23, 2016: It's revealed that Justice Department has granted five Clinton officials
immunity from prosecution: former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, State Department staffers John
Bentel and Heather Samuelson, and Clinton computer workers Paul Combetta and Brian
Pagliano.
Yahoo News publishes
report by Michael Isikoff about Carter Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. (The article is
apparently based on leaked info from Fusion GPS Steele anti-Trump "dossier" political
opposition research.)
Sept. 25, 2016 : Trump associate Carter Page writes letter
to FBI Comey objecting to the so-called "witch hunt" involving him.
Sept. 26, 2016 : Obama administration asks secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) court to allow National Counter Terrorism Center to access sensitive, "unmasked" intel
on Americans acquired by FBI and NSA. (The Court later approves the request.)
FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page that Carter Page's letter (dated the day before)
"...provides us a pretext to interview."
Sept. 27, 2016: Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of National Security Division
John Carlin announces he's stepping down. He was former chief of staff and senior counsel to
former FBI director Robert Mueller.
End of Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele
meet with reporters, including New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker
and CNN or ABC. One meeting is at office of Democratic National Committee general counsel.
Early October 2016: Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born author of anti-Trump
"dossier," meets in New
York with David Corn, Washington-bureau chief of Mother Jones.
According to
The Guardian, the FBI submits a more narrowly focused FISA wiretap request to replace one
turned down in June to monitor four Trump associates.
Oct. 3, 2016: FBI seizes computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, who is accused of sexually
texting an underage girl. Weiner is married to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. FBI learns
there are Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop but waits several weeks before
notifying Congress and reopening investigation.
Oct. 4, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Counterintelligence Division, New York Field Office with Charles
McGonigal.
Oct. 7, 2016: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Department of Homeland
Security issue statement saying Russian government is responsible for hacking Democrat emails
to disrupt 2016 election.
Oct. 13, 2016: President Obama gives a speech in support of the crackdown on "fake news" by
stating that somebody needs to step in and "curate" information in the "wild, wild West media
environment."
Oct. 14, 2016: FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page discussing talking points to convince FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking Dept. of Justice official to sign a warrant
to wiretap Trump associate Carter Page. The email subject line is "Crossfire FISA." "Crossfire
Hurricane" was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related
to Russia matters in the 2016 election.
"At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him," Strzok emailed Lisa Page less
than four weeks before Election Day.
Mid-Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporters about Trump political opposition research. The reporters are from the New
York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News.
Oct. 16, 2016: Mary McCord is named Assistant Attorney General for Justice Department
National Security Division.
Oct. 18, 2016: President Obama
advises Trump to "stop whining" after Trump tweeted the election could be rigged. "There is
no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even you could even rig
America's elections," said Obama. He also calls Trump's "flattery" of Russian president Putin
"unprecedented."
In FBI emails, head of counterespionage Peter Strzok and his mistress FBI lawyer Lisa Page
discuss rushing approval for a FISA warrant for a Russia-related investigation code-named
"Dragon."
Oct. 19, 2016: Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes his last memo for anti-Trump
"dossier" political opposition research provided to FBI. The FBI reportedly authorizes payment
to Steele. Fusion GPS has reportedly paid him $160,000.
Approx. Oct. 21, 2016: For the second time in several months, Justice Department and FBI
apply to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates sign the application. This time, the request is approved based on
new FBI "evidence" including parts of Fusion GPS' "Steele dossier" and Michael Isikoff Yahoo
article. The FBI
doesn't tell the court that Trump's political opponent, the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, funded the "evidence."
Oct. 24, 2016: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of FBI Director James Comey and editor-in-chief of
the blog Lawfare, writes
of the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump wins. It's the same phrase FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had used when discussing the possibility of a Trump win.
Obama intel officials orally inform Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of an earlier
Inspector General review uncovering their "significant noncompliance" in following proper "702"
procedures safeguarding the National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence database with sensitive
info on US citizens.
Late Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporter from Mother Jones by Skype about Trump political opposition research.
Oct. 26, 2016: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court holds hearing with Obama intel
officials over their "702" surveillance violations. The judge criticizes
NSA for "institutional lack of candor" and states "this is a very serious Fourth Amendment
issue."
Oct. 28, 2016: FBI Director Comey notifies Congress that he's reopening Clinton probe due to
Clinton emails found on Anthony Wiener laptop several weeks earlier.
Oct. 30, 2016: Mother Jones writer David Corn is first to report on the anti-Trump
"dossier," quoting unidentified former spy, presumed to be Christopher Steele. FBI general
counsel James Baker had reportedly been in touch with Corn but Corn later denies Baker was the
leaker.
FBI terminates its relationship with Steele because Steele had
leaked his FBI involvement in Mother Jones article.
Steele reportedly maintains backchannel contact with Justice Dept. through Deputy Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr.
Oct. 31, 2016: New York Times
reports FBI is investigating Trump and found no illicit connections to Russia.
Nov. 1, 2016: FBI concludes ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled anti-Trump
"dossier" using Russian sources, leaked to press and is not suitable for use as a confidential
source. However, Steele continues to "help," according to Jan. 31, 2017 texts to Justice Dept.
official Bruce Ohr.
Nov. 3, 2016: FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI's Peter Strzok about her concerns that
Clinton might lose and Trump would become president: "The [New York Times] probability numbers
are dropping every day. I'm scared for our organization."
Nov. 6, 2016: FBI Director Comey tells Congress that Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner
computer do not change earlier conclusion: she should not be charged.
Nov. 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's interest in NSA materials accelerates,
according to later news reports.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson shortly after election.
The FBI interviews Ohr about his ongoing contacts with Fusion GPS.
Nov. 9, 2016: An unnamed FBI attorney (later quoted in Dept. of Justice Inspector General
probe) texts another FBI employee, "I'm just devastated...I just can't imagine the systematic
disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the
rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going
to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids.
And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to
fight this again. Also Pence is stupid....Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal
documents investigating [Trump's] staff."
Nov. 10, 2016 : Emails
imply top FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Bill Priestap engaged in
a new mission to "scrub" or research lists of associates of President-elect Trump, looking for
potential "derogatory" information.
President Obama
meets with President-elect Trump in the White House and reportedly advises Trump not to
hire Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Nov. 2016: National Security Agency Mike Rogers
meets with president-elect Trump and is criticized for "not telling the Obama
administration."
Nov. 17, 2016: Trump
moves his Friday presidential team meetings out of Trump Tower.
Nov. 18, 2016: Trump names Flynn his national security adviser. Over the next few weeks,
Flynn communicates with numerous international leaders.
Nov. 18-20, 2016: Sen. John McCain and his longtime adviser, David Kramer--an ex-U.S. State
Dept. official--attend a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia where former UK ambassador
to Russia Sir Andrew Wood
tells them about the Fusion GPS anti-Trump dossier. (Kramer is affiliated with the anti-Russia "Ukraine
Today" media organization). They discuss confirming the info has reached top levels of FBI for
action.
Nov. 21, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr, works for Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates, meets with FBI officials including Peter Strzok, Strzok's girlfriend--FBI attorney Lisa
Page, and another agent. Ohr's notes indicate the FBI "may go back to [ex-British spy] Chris
Steele" of Fusion GPS just 20 days after dismissing him.
Nov. 28, 2016: Sen. McCain associate David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele
for a briefing on the anti-Trump research. Afterward, Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson gives Sen.
McCain a copy of the "dossier." Steele also
passes anti-Trump info to top UK government official in charge of national security. Sen.
McCain soon arranges a meeting with FBI Director Comey.
Late Nov. 2016: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr officially tells
FBI about his contacts with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele and about Ohr's wife's contract work
for Fusion GPS.
Nov. 30, 2016 : UN Ambassador Samantha Power makes request to unmask the name of Trump
National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was "incidentally" captured by intel
surveillance.
Dec. 2016: Text messages between FBI officials Strzok and Page are later said to be "lost"
due to a technical glitch beginning at this point.
Dec. 2, 2016: UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper request to unmask the name of Trump National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn,
who was "incidentally" captured by intel surveillance.
Dec. 6, 2016: Two more Obama administration officials request to unmask the name of
Flynn.
Dec. 7, 2016 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Dec. 8 or 9, 2016: Sen. John McCain
meets with FBI Director Comey at FBI headquarters and
hands over Fusion GPS anti-Trump research, elevating the FBI's investigation into the
matter. The FBI compiles a classified two-page summary and attaches it to intel briefing note
on Russian cyber-interference in election for
President Obama .
Hillary Clinton makes a public appearance denouncing "fake news."
Hillary Clinton and Democratic operative David Brock of Media Matters announces he's leaving
board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), one of his many
propaganda and liberal advocacy groups, to focus on "fake news" effort.
Brock later claims credit, privately to donors, for convincing Facebook to crack down on
conservative fake news.
Dec. 14, 2017 : There are
10 more requests to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence, including two by Power, CIA
Director Brennan, and six officials from the Treasury Dept.
Dec. 15, 2016: Obama intel officials "incidentally" spy on Trump officials meeting with the
United Arab Emirates crown prince in Trump Tower. This is taken to mean the government was
wiretapping the prince and "happened to capture" Trump officials communicating with him at
Trump Tower. Identities of Americans accidentally captured in such surveillance are strictly
protected or "masked" inside intel agencies for constitutional privacy reasons.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
secretly "unmasks" names of the Trump officials, officially revealing their identities.
They reportedly include: Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Director of National Intelligence Clapper expands rules to allow the National Security
Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate classified surveillance material within the government. The
same day,
17 Obama officials request the unmasking of Lt. Gen. Flynn in intelligence.
Dec. 16, 2016 : Five more Obama officials request unmasking of intelligence materials
regarding Lt. Gen. Flynn.
Dec. 23, 2016 : Power request another Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 28, 2016 :
Lt. Gen. Flynn speaks with Russia ambassador.
Clapper and the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey request Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 29, 2016: President Obama imposes sanctions against Russia for its alleged election
interference.
President-elect Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
speaks with Russian Ambassador to U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The calls are wiretapped by U.S.
intelligence and later leaked to the
press.
State Department
releases 2,800 work-related emails from Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, found
by FBI on laptop computer of Abedin's husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
2017
Jan. 2017: According to CNN: a
wiretap reportedly continues against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, including
times he speaks to Trump, meaning U.S. intel officials could have "accidentally" captured
Trump's communications.
Justice Dept. Inspector General confirms it's investigating several aspects of FBI and
Justice Department actions during Clinton probe.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies to Congress that Russia interfered
in U.S. elections by spreading fake news on social media.
Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik, who "tipped off" Hillary Clinton campaign regarding
Congressional questions about Clinton's email, leaves government work for private practice.
The FBI interviews a main source of Christopher Steele's "dossier" and learns the
information was merely bar room gossip and rumor never meant to be taken as fact or submitted
to the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Carter Page. (The FBI
does not notify the court and applies for, and receives, another wiretap against Page).
Early Jan. 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
again sign the application.
Jan. 3, 2017: Obama Attorney General Lynch signs rules Director of National Intelligence
Clapper expanded Dec. 15 allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate
surveillance within the government.
Jan. 5, 2017: Intelligence Community leadership including FBI Director Comey, Yates, CIA
Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, provides classified
briefing to President Obama, Vice President Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice on
alleged Russia hacking during 2016 campaign, according to notes later written by national
security adviser Susan Rice.
After briefing, according notes made later by Rice, President Obama convenes Oval Office
meeting with her, FBI Director Comey, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates. The "Steele dossier" is reportedly discussed. Also reportedly discussed: Trump National
Security Adviser Flynn's talks with Russia's ambassador.
Jan. 6, 2017: FBI Director Comey and other Intel leaders meet with President-Elect Trump and
his national security team at Trump Tower in New York to brief them on alleged Russian efforts
to interfere in the election.
Later, Obama national security adviser Susan Rice would write herself an email stating that
President Obama suggested they hold back on providing Trump officials with certain info for
national security reasons.
After Trump team briefing, FBI Director Comey meets alone with Trump to "brief him" on
Fusion GPS Steele allegations "to alert the incoming President to the existence of this
material," even though it was salacious and unverified. Comey later says Director of National
Intelligence Clapper asked him (Comey) to do the briefing personally.
Jan. 7, 2017 : Clapper and two other Obama administration officials request Flynn
unmasking.
Jan. 10, 2017: The 35-page Fusion GPS anti-Trump "dossier" is leaked to the media and
published. It reveals that sources of the unverified info are Russians close to President
Putin.
Email written by FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
indicates the FBI has been given the anti-Trump "dossier" by at least 3 different
anti-Trump sources.
A CIA official makes a Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 11, 2017 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 12, 2017: Obama administration finalizes new rules allowing NSA to spread "certain
intel to" other U.S. intel agencies without normal privacy protections.
Justice Dept. inspector general announces review of alleged misconduct by FBI Director Comey
and other matters related to FBI's Clinton probe as well as FBI leaks.
Vice President Joe Biden and the Treasury Secretary request the unmasking of Flynn in
intelligence communications.
Someone leaks to to David Ignatius of the Washington Post that Trump National Security
Adviser Flynn had called Russia's ambassador. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the US
sanctions?" asked Ignatius in the article.
Jan. 13, 2017: Senate Intelligence Committee
opens investigation into Russia and U.S. political campaign officials.
Jan. 15, 2017: After leaks about Flynn's call with Russia's ambassador, Vice President-elect
Mike Pence tells the press that Flynn did not discuss U.S. sanctions on the call.
Jan. 20, 2017: Trump becomes president.
Fifteen minutes after Trump becomes president, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice
emails memo to herself purporting to summarize the Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with President
Obama and other top officials. She states that Obama instructed the group to investigate "by
the book" and asked them to be mindful whether there were certain things that "could not be
fully shared with the incoming administration."
Jan. 22, 2017: Intel info leaks to Wall Street Journal which reports
"US counterintelligence agents have investigated communications" between Trump aide Gen.
Michael Flynn and Russia ambassador to the U.S. Kislyak to determine if any laws were
violated.
Jan. 23, 2017: Leak to Washington Post falsely claims Trump National Security Adviser Flynn
is not the subject of an investigation.
Jan. 24, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates sends two FBI agents, including Peter
Strzok, to the White House to question Gen. Flynn. FBI Director Comey later takes credit for
"sending a couple of guys" to interview Flynn, circumventing normal processes.
Notes kept
hidden until May 2020 show FBI officials discussing whether the goal of the meeting with Flynn
was to "get him to lie" so that he would be fired or prosecuted.
Jan. 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and a high-ranking colleague go to White
House to tell counsel Don McGahn that Flynn had lied to Pence about the content of his talks
with Russian ambassador and "the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was
problematic in and of itself."
Jan. 27, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates again visits the White House.
Jan. 31, 2017: President Trump fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refuses
to enforce his temporary travel ban on Muslims coming into U.S. from certain countries.
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele texts Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr who worked for
Yates: "B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you re- SY."
Dana Boente becomes Acting Attorney General. (It's later revealed that Boente signed at
least one wiretap application against former Trump adviser Carter Page.)
Feb. 2, 2017: It's reported
that five men employed by House of Representatives Democrats, including leader Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-Florida), are under criminal investigation for allegedly "accessing House IT systems
without lawmakers' knowledge." Suspects include three Awan brothers "who managed office
information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
other lawmakers."
Feb. 3, 2017: A Russian tech mogul named in the Steele "dossier" files defamation lawsuits
against BuzzFeed in the U.S. and Christopher Steele in the U.K. over the dossier's claims he
interfered in U.S. elections.
Feb. 8, 2017: Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General and Dana Boente moves to Deputy
Attorney General.
Feb. 9, 2017: News of FBI wiretaps capturing Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn speaking with Russia's ambassador is leaked to the press. New York Times and
Washington Post report Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions, despite his earlier denials. The Post
also reports the FBI "found nothing illicit" in the talks. The Post headline in an article by
Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima reads, "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed
Sanctions with Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say."
Feb. 13, 2017 : Washington Post
reports Justice Dept. has opened a "Logan Act" violation investigation against Trump
national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Feb. 14, 2017: New York Times reports
that FBI had told Obama officials there was no "quid pro quo" (promise of a deal in exchange
for some action) discussed between Gen. Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Gen. Flynn resigns, allegedly acknowledging he misled vice president Mike Pence about the
content of his discussions with Russia.
Comey says that, in a meeting, Trump states, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Comey says he
replies "he is a good guy." Trump later takes issue with Comey's characterization of the
meeting.
Feb. 15, 2017 : NPR
reports on "official transcripts of Flynn's calls" (saying they show no wrongdoing but that
doesn't rule out illegal activity).
Feb. 17, 2017: Washington Post reports that "Flynn told FBI he did not discuss sanctions"
with Russia ambassador and that "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."
Feb. 24, 2017 : FBI interviews Flynn, according to later testimony from Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates.
March 1, 2017: Washington Post reports Attorney General Jeff Sessions has met with Russian
ambassador twice in the recent past (as did many Democrat and Republican officials). His
critics say that contradicts his earlier testimony to Congress. The article by Adam Entous,
Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller raises the idea of a special counsel to investigate.
March 2017: FBI Director James Comey
gives private briefings to members of Congress and reportedly says he does not believe Gen.
Flynn lied to FBI.
House Intelligence Committee requests list of unmasking requests Obama officials made. The
intel agencies do not provide the information, prompting a June 1 subpoena.
March 2, 2017: Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Russia-linked
investigations.
Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, becomes Acting Attorney General for Russia
Probe. It's later revealed that Rosenstein singed at least one wiretap application against
former Trump adviser Carter Page.
March 4, 2017: President Trump tweets: "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire
tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
and "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
March 10, 2017: Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, steps forward to support
Trump's wiretapping claim, revealing that the Obama administration intel officials recorded his
own communications with a Libyan official in Spring 2011.
March 14, 2017 : FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI official Peter Strzok: "Finally two pages
away from finishing [All the President's Men]. Did you know the president resigns in the end?!"
Strzok replies, "What?!?! God, that we should be so lucky. [smiley face emoji]"
March 20, 2017 : FBI Director Comey tells House Intelligence Committee he has "no
information that supports" the President's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by
the prior administration. "We have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey says. "(T)he answer
is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components."
FBI Director Comey tells Congress there is "salacious and unverified" material in the Fusion
GPS dossier used by FBI, in part, to obtain Carter Page wiretap. (Under FBI "Woods Procedures,"
only facts carefully verified by the FBI are allowed to be presented to court to obtain
wiretaps.)
March 22, 2017: Chairman of House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) publicly
announces he's seen evidence of Trump associates being "incidentally" surveilled by Obama intel
officials; and their names being "unmasked" and illegally leaked. Nunes briefs President Trump
and holds a news conference. He's criticized for doing so. An ethics investigation is opened
into his actions but later clears him of wrongdoing.
In an interview on PBS, former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice responds to Nunes
allegations by stating: "I know nothing about this, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes
was referring." (She later acknowledges unmasking names of Trump associates.)
March 2017: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) writes Justice Dept. accusing Fusion GPS of
acting as an agent for Russia "without properly registering" due to its pro-Russia effort to
kill a law allowing sanctions against foreign human rights violators. Fusion GPS denies the
allegations.
March 24, 2017: Fusion GPS declines to answer Sen. Grassley's questions or document
requests.
March 27, 2017: Former Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas admits she encouraged
Obama and Congressional officials to "get as much information as they can" about Russia and
Trump officials before inauguration. "That's why you have the leaking," she told MSNBC.
Early April, 2017: A third FBI wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is
approved.
Again, FBI Director James Comey, and acting attorney general Dana Boente sign the application.
Trump officials including Mike Pompeo at the CIA are now leading the intel agencies during the
wiretap.
April 3, 2017: Multiple news reports state that Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
had requested and reviewed "unmasked" intelligence on Trump associates whose information was
"incidentally" collected by intel agencies.
April 4, 2017: Obama former National Security Adviser Rice admits, in an interview, that she
asked to reveal names of U.S. citizens previously masked in intel reports. She says her
motivations were not political. When asked if she leaked names, Rice states, "I leaked nothing
to nobody."
April 6, 2017: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes recuses himself from Russia
part of his committee's investigation.
April 11, 2017: FBI Director Comey
appoints Stephen Laycock as special agent in charge of Counterintelligence Division for
Washington Field Office.
Washington Post reports FBI secretly obtained wiretap against Trump campaign associate
Carter Page last summer. (Later, it's revealed the summer wiretap had been turned down, but a
subsequent application was approved in October.)
April 20, 2017: Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord resigns as acting head of
Justice Dept. National Security Division. She'd led probes of Russia interference in election
and Trump-Russia ties.
April 28, 2017: Dana Boente is appointed acting assistant attorney general for national
security division to replace Mary McCord. (Boente has signed one of the questioned wiretap
applications for Carter Page.)
National Security Agency (NSA) submits remedies for its egregious surveillance violations
(revealed last October) to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court promising to "no longer
collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target." The
NSA also begins deleting collected data on U.S. citizens it had been storing.
May 3, 2017: FBI Director Comey
testifies he's "mildly nauseous" at the idea he might have affected election with the 11th
hour Clinton email notifications to Congress.
Comey also testifies
he's "never" been an anonymous news source on "matters relating to" investigating the Trump
campaign.
Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice declines Republican Congressional
request to testify at a hearing about unmaskings and surveillance.
May 8, 2017: Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper testify to Congress. They
admit having reviewed "classified documents in which Mr. Trump, his associates or members
of Congress had been unmasked," and possibly discussing it with others under the Obama
administration.
May 9, 2017: President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. Andrew McCabe becomes acting
FBI Director.
May 12, 2017: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of ex-FBI Director James Comey and editor in chief
of Lawfare, contacts New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt to
leak conversations he'd had with Comey as FBI Director that are critical of President
Trump.
May 16, 2017: New York Times
publishes leaked account of FBI memoranda recorded by former FBI Director James Comey.
Comey later acknowledges engineering the leak of the FBI material through his friend, Columbia
Law School professor Daniel Richman, to spur appointment of special counsel to investigate
President Trump.
Trump reportedly
interviews , but passes over, former FBI Director Robert Mueller for position of FBI
Director.
May 17, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel, Russia-Trump probe. Mueller and former FBI Director Comey are friends and worked
closely together in previous Justice Dept. and FBI positions.
The gap of missing text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ends. The
couple is soon assigned to the Mueller team investigating Trump.
May 19, 2017: Anthony Wiener, former Congressman and husband of Hillary Clinton confidant
Huma Abedin, turns himself in to FBI in case of underage sexting ; his third major
kerfuffle over sexting in six years.
May 22, 2017 : FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI Attorney Lisa Page about
whether Strzok should join Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump-Russia collusion.
Strzok spoke of "unfinished business" that he "unleashed" with the Clinton classified email
probe and stated: "Now I need to fix it and finish it." He also referred to the Special Counsel
probe, which hadn't yet begun in earnest, as an "investigation leading to impeachment." But he
also stated he had a "gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
June 1, 2017: House Intelligence Committee issues 7 subpoenas, including for information
related to unmaskings requested by ex-Obama officials national security adviser Susan Rice,
former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.
June 8, 2017: Former FBI Director James Comey admits having engineered
leak of his own memo to New York Times to spur appointment of a special counsel to
investigate President Trump.
June 20, 2017: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe names Philip Celestini as Special Agent in
Charge of the Intelligence Division, Washington Field Office.
Late June, 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page for the fourth and final time that we know of. It lasts through
late Sept. 2017. (Page is never ultimately charged with a crime.) FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sign the renewal application.
Late July, 2017: FBI reportedly searches Paul Manafort's Alexandria, Virginia home.
Summer 2017: FBI lawyer Lisa Page is reassigned from Mueller investigation. Her boyfriend,
FBI official Peter Strzok is removed from Mueller investigation after the Inspector General
discovers compromising texts between Strzok and Page. Congress is not notified of the
developments.
Aug. 2, 2017: Christopher Wray is named FBI Director.
August 2017: Ex-FBI Director Comey signs a book deal for a reported $2 million.
Sept. 13, 2017: Under questioning from Congress, Obama's former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice reportedly admits having requested to see the protected identities of Trump
transition officials "incidentally" captured by government surveillance.
Approx. Oct. 10, 2017: Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
pleads guilty to lying to FBI about his unsuccessful efforts during the campaign to
facilitate meetings between Trump officials and Russian officials.
Oct. 17, 2017: Obama's former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power reportedly tells Congressional
investigators that many of the hundreds of "unmasking" requests in her name during the election
year were not made by her.
Oct. 24, 2017: Congressional Republicans announce new investigations into a 2010
acquisition that gave Russia control of 20% of U.S. uranium supply while Clinton was secretary
of state; and FBI decision not to charge Clinton in classified info probe.
Oct. 30, 2017: Special Counsel Mueller
charges ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates with tax
and money laundering crimes related to their foreign work. The charges do not appear related to
Trump.
Nov. 2, 2017: Carter Page
testifies to House Intelligence committee under oath without an attorney and asks to have
the testimony published. He denies ever meeting the Russian official that Fusion GPS claimed
he'd met with in July 2016.
Nov. 5, 2017: Special Counsel Robert Mueller
files charges against ex-Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for
allegedly lying to FBI official Peter Strzok about contacts with Russian ambassador during
presidential transition.
Dec. 1, 2017: Former national security adviser Gen. Flynn pleads guilty of
lying to the FBI. Prosecutors recommend no prison time (but later reverse their
recommendation).
James Rybicki steps down as chief of staff to FBI Director.
Dec. 6, 2017: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is reportedly stripped of one of
his positions at Justice Dept. amid controversy over his and his wife's role in anti-Trump
political opposition research.
Dec. 7, 2017: FBI Director Wray incorrectly testifies that there have been no "702"
surveillance abuses by the government.
Dec. 19, 2017: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly testifies that the wiretap
against Trump campaign official Carter Page would not have been approved without the Fusion GPS
info. FBI general counsel James Baker, who is himself subject of an Inspector General probe
over his alleged leaks to the press, attends as McCabe's attorney. McCabe acknowledges that if
Baker had met with Mother Jones reporter David Corn, it would have been inappropriate.
FBI general counsel James Baker is
reassigned amid investigation into his alleged anti-Trump related contacts with
media.
2018
Jan. 4, 2018: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
refer criminal
charges against Christopher Steele to the FBI for investigation. There's an apparent
conflict of interest with the FBI being asked to investigate Steele since the FBI has used
Steele's controversial political opposition research to obtain wiretaps.
Jan. 8, 2018: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr loses his second title at the agency.
Jan. 10, 2018: Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen files defamation
suits against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed News for publishing the "Steele dossier," which he says
falsely
claimed he met Russian government officials in Prague, Czech Republic, in August of
2016.
Jan. 11, 2018: House of Representatives approves government's
controversial "702" wireless surveillance authority. The Senate follows suit.
Jan. 19, 2018: Justice Dept. produces to Congress some text messages between FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok but states that FBI lost texts between December 14, 2016 and May 17,
2017 due to a technical glitch.
President Trump signs six-year extension of "702" wireless surveillance authority.
Jan. 23, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey friend who leaked on behalf of Comey to New York
Times to spur appointment of special counsel is now Comey's attorney.
Jan. 25, 2018: Justice Dept. Inspector General notifies Congress it has recovered missing
text messages between FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
Jan. 27, 2018: Edward O'Callaghan is
named Acting Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division.
Jan. 29, 2018: Andrew McCabe steps down as Deputy
FBI Director
ahead of his March retirement.
Jan. 30, 2018: News reports
allege that Justice Department Inspector General is looking into why FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe appeared to wait three weeks before acting on new Clinton emails found right
before the election.
Feb. 2, 2018: House Intelligence Committee (Nunes) Republican memo is released. It
summarizes classified documents revealing for the first time that Fusion GPS political
opposition research was used, in part, to justify Carter Page wiretap; along with Michael
Isikoff Yahoo News article based on the same opposition research.
Memo also states that Fusion GPS set up back channel to FBI through Nellie Ohr, who
conducted opposition research on Trump and passed it to her husband, associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr.
Feb. 7, 2018: Justice Department official David Laufman, who helped oversee the Clinton and
Russia probes, steps down as chief of National Security Division's Counterintelligence and
Export Control Section.
Feb. 9, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey assistant Josh Campbell leaves FBI for job at
CNN.
Justice Department Associate Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Rachel Brand,
resigns.
Feb. 16, 2018: Special counsel Mueller obtains guilty plea from a Dutch attorney for
lying to federal investigators about the last time he spoke to Rick Gates regarding a 2012
project related to Ukraine. The
plea does not appear to relate to 2016 campaign or Trump. The Dutch attorney is married to
the daughter of a Russian oligarch who's suing Buzzfeed and Christopher Steele for alleged
defamation in the "dossier."
Feb. 22, 2018: Former State Dept. official and Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer
invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before House Intelligence Committee. Kramer
reportedly picked up the anti-Trump political opposition research in London and delivered it to
Sen. McCain who delivered it to the FBI.
Special counsel Mueller
files new charges against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former campaign
aide Rick Gates, accusing them of additional tax and bank fraud crimes. The allegations appear
to be unrelated to Trump.
Fri. Feb. 23, 2018: Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates,
pleads guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators (though he issues a statement saying
he's innocent of the indictment charges). The allegations and plea have no apparent link to
Trump-Russia campaign collusion.
Sat. Feb. 24, 2018: Democrats on House Intel Committee release
their rebuttal memo to the Republican version that summarized alleged FBI misconduct re: using
the GPS Fusion opposition research to get wiretap against Carter Page.
March 12, 2018 : House Intelligence Committee
closes Russia-Trump investigation with no evidence of collusion.
Fri. March 16, 2018 : Attorney General Jeff Sessions fires Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe, based on recommendation from FBI ethics investigators.
Thurs. March 22, 2018 : President Trump announces plans to replace
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John
Bolton.
House Judiciary Committee issues
subpoenas to Department of Justice after Department failed to produce documents.
May 4, 2018 : Amid allegations that he was responsible for improper leaks, FBI attorney
James Baker resigns and joins the Brookings Institution, writing for the anti-Trump blog
"Lawfare" that first discussed the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump got
elected.
2019
March 2019 : Special Counsel Robert Mueller signs off on his final report stating
that there was no collusion or coordination between Trump -- or any American -- and Russia. He
leaves as an open question the issue of whether Trump took any actions that could be considered
obstruction. No new charges are recommended or filed with the issuance of the report.
June 2019 : Former Trump National Security Adviser Flynn fire his defense attorneys and
hires Sidney Powell.
Oct. 25, 2019 : Flynn files a motion to dismiss the case against him due to prosecutorial
misconduct. Among other claims, Flynn says prosecutors failed to turn over exculpatory material
tending to show his innocence. Prosecutors claim they were not required to turn over the
information.
Dec. 19, 2019 : An investigation by Inspector General
Michael Horowitz finds egregious abuses by FBI and Justice Department officials in obtaining
wiretaps of former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The report also says an FBI attorney
doctored a document, providing false information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, to get the wiretaps.
2020
Jan. 7, 2020 : Prosecutors reverse their earlier recommendation for no prison time, and ask
for up to six months in prison for Flynn.
Jan. 16, 2020 : Flynn files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Jan. 23, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice
finds that two of its wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page were
improperly obtained and are therefore invalid.
Feb. 10, 2020: The Dept. of Justice asks a judge to sentence Trump associate Roger Stone to
7 to 9 years in prison for lying about his communications with WikiLeaks.
Feb. 11, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice reduces its recommendation for prison time for Stone
after President Trump and others criticized the initial representation as excessive. Stone
receives three years and four months in prison.
Feb. 20, 2020: President Trump
appoints Richard Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Grenell begins
facilitating the release of long withheld documents regarding FBI actions against Trump
campaign associates.
March 31, 2020 : A Justice Dept. Inspector General's
analysis of more than two dozen wiretap applications from eight FBI field offices over two
months finds "we do not have confidence" that the bureau followed standards to ensure the
accuracy of the wiretap requests.
April 3, 2020 : Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asks FBI to review whether it
wiretaps are valid in light of information about problems and abuses.
April 29, 2020 : Newly-released documents show FBI officials, prior to
their original interview with Flynn, discussing whether the goal was to try to get him to lie
to get him fired or so that he could be prosecuted.
May 7, 2020 : The Department of Justice announces a decision to drop the case against
Flynn.
"Do you remember that part, in the Wizard of Oz, when the witch is dead and the Munchkins
start singing? Think that kind of happiness."
Julie Mulhern, from "The Deep End"
The New York Times is unable to
contain its glee at Russia's having had to cancel its Victory Day celebrations. There was
no end of negative press directed at Putin for having not yet announced postponement or
cancellation, because it looked for a bit as if Russia was going to go for herd immunity rather
than bringing everything to a grinding halt, and sequestering its terrified citizens in their
homes as the west has done. But finally the number of Russian infections began to rocket
encouragingly upward, and something had to be done. So it was lockdown, Victory Day postponed
indefinitely, and the Times couldn't be happier.
The Times has been going downhill at quite a clip ever since the mendacious
aluminum-tubes nonsense in the runup to the American invasion of Iraq, and in fact the Times
was an enthusiastic promoter of that war in general, swaddling itself in righteousness when
serial liar Judith Miller went to jail rather than reveal her sources. It was a 'proud but awful
moment for The Times' , but heroine Miller 'surrendered her liberty in defense of a greater
liberty'. Give me a moment, will you? I want to put on some violins.
Ah, that's better. Inspiring, thank you, Judith. But in the end the Times' blubbering about
greater liberty looked a lot more like a heartstrings strumfest in defense of telling
outrageous lies that got thousands upon thousands of innocent people killed, brought out
the very worst in Americans in the
grimy corridors of Abu Ghraib , and left a country so battered, demoralized and divided
that it has never recovered to this day.
The foregoing is simply a measure of how far the Times has fallen, from standard-bearer for
journalistic excellence to liberal demagogue, not fit to wrap fish and chips in. And the
unseemly sneering and giggling of the authors of the subject piece should be regarded with the
same contempt which would surely be directed at Russians who cheered at Independence Day
celebrations having to be canceled in the United States – stick your tailgate parties up
your tailgate, Amerikanski!
But since we're here, let's take a look at what a journalist's salary at The New York
Times buys you these days, shall we?
First of all, what does Victory Day celebrate? Because the Nazi surrender was actually
tendered twice; it was signed May 7th, 1945 at Reims, by Alfred Jodl for Germany, Walter Bedell
Smith for the Allied Expeditionary Force, and Ivan Susloparov for the Soviet High Command. But
the latter was only a junior officer who did not have the authority to sign on behalf of the
state, and the Soviet High Command had not approved the text of the surrender agreement. Stalin
insisted on a second ceremony, said that the first ceremony constituted a preliminary agreement
only, and insisted on the surrender being signed in Berlin, 'center of Nazi aggression'.
"Today, in Reims, Germans signed the preliminary act on an unconditional surrender. The
main contribution, however, was done by Soviet people and not by the Allies, therefore the
capitulation must be signed in front of the Supreme Command of all countries of the anti-Hitler
coalition, and not only in front of the Supreme Command of Allied Forces. Moreover, I disagree
that the surrender was not signed in Berlin, which was the center of Nazi aggression. We agreed
with the Allies to consider the Reims protocol as preliminary."
Eisenhower immediately agreed, and the final Instrument of Surrender was signed May 9th,
1945, by Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel for Germany, Marshal Georgy Zhukov for the Soviet High
Command, and Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder for the Allied Expeditionary Force. This is the
date which has been celebrated every year since, by the Soviet Union and its inheritor, the
Russian Federation.
What does it commemorate? The loss, according to credible research , of 23.8
million Soviet citizens due to war and occupation, 7.2 million of them soldiers who died on the
front lines, 3.1 million more Soviet prisoners of war in German custody, .9 million dead
– many of them starved to death – in the siege of Leningrad, and 2.5 million in the
Jewish holocaust.
Victory Day is not about we-had-more-people-killed-than-you. But just to put the magnitude
of Soviet losses in perspective – total deaths in World War II, what the Soviets called
the Great Patriotic War, were around 60 million people. The Soviet Union accounted for nearly
half the dead of the global total.
And another thing; the war was fought mostly in Europe, and if you look down the rows of
national casualties, you will notice a pattern – once you add civilian casualties on to
the military deaths, the total takes a huge jump. Austria; 261,000 military dead – total
deaths, 384,700. Belgium, 12,100 military dead. Total deaths, 86,000. France; military deaths,
217,600. Total deaths, 567,600. You see what I mean, I'm sure.
United States of America; military deaths, 416,800. Total deaths, 418,500. 1,700 civilian
deaths of American citizens. For each American soldier killed in battle, the Soviet Union lost
17.
And even the most pessimistic would have to admit that the USA came out of World War II in a
pretty good position; my, yes. Incredibly, American managers of General Motors and Ford
went along with the
conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government
documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up
military production in their plants at home.
"When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks
manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization
programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also
driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel -- a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary -- and flying
Opel-built warplanes."
America profited handsomely, both by doing business with the Nazis right up until it was
forced to stop, while at the same time America was churning out war materiel to support the
allies as fast as factory lines could be made to run. Nice work if you can get it. The
Bretton Woods
agreement , concluded in 1944, abandoned the gold standard as the global currency in favour
of the US greenback, putting America in the driver's seat as the dominant world power. The
Soviets were left with a country in smoking ruins, as apple-cheeked America went back to work
with a whistle on its lips. Right away, muttering started about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact,
which has recently exploded into accusation by the US Ambassador to Poland
that Russia started the war. The Moscow Times, a militantly pro-western newspaper,
ponders why Russia will not 'confront its role in the war', and decides it must
be Putin's fault .
"Teaching history has never been easy in Russia, where archives are closed and
transparent discussions about the country's Soviet past are met with hostility. Even then,
teaching World War II is more difficult: with every year that Putin is in power, Russia fails
to confront its role in the war head on."
And now some fucking American chowderhead – in Moscow – openly snickers over the
cancellation of the Victory Day parade and celebration, in between boasting about how he
carries a shopping bag with him every time he decides to go out for a stroll, so police won't
challenge him on why he's not at home.
"I prefer going out during the day, walking with my wife, shielded by a big shopping bag
in the hope that the police will let us be."
And of course, the canard we have all become accustomed to, Russia is aflame with
coronavirus, with over 10.000 new cases per day for the last three days straight. As of the
middle of April, Russia reported that nearly half its new cases were asymptomatic , and that
proportion continues to increase – it seems reasonable to assume the high numbers result
from increased testing. Deaths from coronavirus in Russia remain extremely low. 1,723 COVID
victims have died, of a total 187,859 cases since the beginning of the outbreak, a mortality
rate so far of .91%, about the same as the seasonal flu.
"Travel brings wisdom only to the wise. It renders the ignorant more ignorant than
ever."
Oh, that is explained as well – "In a country with a long history of legal nihilism,
the mayor's stay-at-home pleas were not expected to gain much traction. Russia is, after all,
a land where, according to popular wisdom, "the severity of the law is compensated by the
laxity of its enforcement" and "when something is not allowed but is greatly desired it can
be done."
Again, the beauty of artistic license; on the one hand, the law in Russia is just words
– nobody really pays attention to it. The only people who don't do just as they please
are lazy fucking Russian puddings who can't be bothered to think big. On the other, whenever
Navalny and his hamsters want to march straight into Red Square or down major streets where
they can cause a traffic jam, the oppressive hand of the law is everywhere at once and
screaming children are dragged off to prison, or straight to the nearest recruiting office
where they are clapped into the army before they know what they're about. Depending on what
kind of story you are writing for the New York Times, the law in Russia can be either
wall-to-wall incompetence, Keystone Kops writ large, unenforceable and just going through the
motions. Or it can be oppression, everywhere at once, brave liberals sweating over their
keyboards at night in garrets, always waiting for that knock on the door, but so committed to
getting the truth out that they risk their very lives.
Russia can be anything you like, provided your objective is to shit on it.
The vignette the author details above suggests that he and his wife are just out for a
gratuitous stroll, to take the air – that little bit smarter than the native mugs who
stay crammed into their tiny apartments, you see. It never occurs to them that all they need
do is carry a shopping bag, and the cops will be either too lazy or too dumb to
investigate.
He's not really shopping and the dumb Orcs don't suspect that he is fooling them!
But I see Orcs walking around outside my Moscow house all the time, and they are not
carrying shopping bags and the cops do not stop them.
In fact, since this isolation regime has come into force, I have yet to see a cop in our
neighborhood.
At the very beginning of the "quarantine", 2 cops came to the basketball court outside our
house and told sone boys to bugger off. I am sure some old ratbag of an interfering babushka
had summoned them.
As to Russia and COVID I offer this: As of today Russia was #5 in tests/million among
countries with 10M+ populations and #1 in countries with 100M+ populations. Therefore, the
number of cases is probably not a very good indicator other than showing how many got it
without much of an effect. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Bill Browder's complaint against Der Spiegel for questioning the story he used to push
for anti-Russian sanctions has backfired, with Germany's Press Council concluding his own
position is far from being an "indisputable fact."
"We cannot agree with your analysis, in which you criticize the allegations made by the
author," the German Press Council – a monitoring organization formed by major German
publishers and journalistic associations – said in its response to Browder's team, as it
rejected the complaint against one of Germany's major news media outlets
What's the world come to when the world's most influential
ex-American-vulture-capitalist-turned-British-human-rights-crusader can't crush free speech
in every NATO country, only some NATO countries? A blow to all the London-DC human rights
apparatchiks on Browder's payroll. https://t.co/774OihXK8T
Chancellor Angela Merkel that stupid? "Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
Notable quotes:
"... That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are. ..."
"... Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week. ..."
"... This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet: ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server. ..."
"... The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken. ..."
"... The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group? ..."
The New York Times continues its anti-Russia campaign with a report about an old
cyberattack on German parliament which also targeted the parliament office of Chancellor Angela
Merkel.
Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
But asked how Berlin intended to deal with recent revelations implicating the Russians,
Ms. Merkel was less forthcoming.
"We always reserve the right to take measures," she said in Parliament, then immediately
added, "Nevertheless, I will continue to strive for a good relationship with Russia, because
I believe that there is every reason to always continue these diplomatic efforts."
That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all
attributions of cyberattacks are.
Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they
took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms.
Merkel's office just last week.
Officials say the report traced the attack to the same Russian hacker group that targeted
the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election campaign in 2016.
This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the
alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike,
had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or
that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet:
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the
years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had
no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee's server.
...
[CrowdStrike President Shawn] Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of
the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by
the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged
Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in
fact know if such a theft occurred at all : "We did not have concrete evidence that the data
was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was
exfiltrated," Henry said.
The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided
them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was
taken.
The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing
but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no
evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the
attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group?
While the NYT also mentions that NSA actually snooped on Merkel's private phonecalls
it tries to keep the spotlight on Russia:
As such, Germany's democracy has been a target of very different kinds of Russian
intelligence operations, officials say. In December 2016, 900,000 Germans lost access to
internet and telephone services following a cyberattack traced to Russia.
That mass attack on internet home routers, which by the way happened in November 2016 not in
December, was done with the Mirai
worm :
More than 900,000 customers of German ISP Deutsche Telekom (DT) were knocked offline this
week after their Internet routers got infected by a new variant of a computer worm known as
Mirai. The malware wriggled inside the routers via a newly discovered vulnerability in a
feature that allows ISPs to remotely upgrade the firmware on the devices. But the new Mirai
malware turns that feature off once it infests a device, complicating DT's cleanup and
restoration efforts.
...
This new variant of Mirai builds on malware
source code released at the end of September . That leak came a little more a week after
a botnet based on Mirai was used in a record-sized
attack that caused KrebsOnSecurity to go offline for several
days . Since then, dozens of new Mirai botnets have emerged , all
competing for a finite pool of vulnerable IoT systems that can be infected.
The attack has not been attributed to Russia but to a British man who offered attacks as a
service.
He was arrested in February 2017:
A 29-year-old man has been arrested at Luton airport by the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA)
in connection with a massive internet attack that disrupted telephone, television and
internet services in Germany last November. As regular readers of We Live Security will
recall, over 900,000 Deutsche Telekom broadband customers were knocked offline last November
as an alleged attempt was made to hijack their routers into a destructive botnet.
...
The NCA arrested the British man under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany's Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) who have described the attack as a threat to Germany's national
communication infrastructure.
According to German prosecutors, the British man allegedly offered to sell access to the
botnet on the computer underground. Agencies are planning to extradite the man to Germany,
where – if convicted – he could face up to ten years imprisonment.
During the trial, Daniel admitted that he never intended for the routers to cease
functioning. He only wanted to silently control them so he can use them as part of a DDoS
botnet to increase his botnet firepower. As discussed earlier he also confessed being paid by
competitors to takedown Lonestar.
In Aug 2017 Daniel was
extradited back to the UK to face extortion charges after attempting to blackmail Lloyds
and Barclays banks. According to press reports, he asked the Lloyds to pay about
£75,000 in bitcoins for the attack to be called off.
The Mirai attack is widely known to have been attributed to Kaye. The case has been
discussed
at length . IT security journalist Brian Krebs, who's site was also attacked by a Mirai bot
net, has written several
stories about it. It was never 'traced to Russia' or attributed it to anyone else but Daniel
Kaye.
Besides that Kennhold writes of "Russia's foreign intelligence service, known as the
G.R.U.". The real Russian foreign intelligence services is the SVR. The military intelligence
agency of Russia was once called GRU but has been renamed to GU.
The New York Times just made up the claim about Russia hacking in Germany from
absolutely nothing. The whole piece was published without even the most basic research and fact
checking.
It seems that for the Times anything can be blamed on Russia completely independent
of what the actually facts say.
Posted by b on May 14, 2020 at 14:38 UTC |
Permalink
Along the same lines, it always bothered me that among all the (mostly contrived)
arguments about who might have been responsible for the alleged "hacking" of DNC as well as
Clinton's emails, we never heard mentioned one single time the one third party that we
absolutely KNOW had intercepted and collected all of those emails--the NSA! Never a peep
about how US intelligence services could be tempted to mischief when in possession of
everyone's sensitive, personal information.
The "Fancy Bear" group (also knowns as advanced persistent threat 28) that is claimed to be
behind the hacks is likely little more than the collection of hacking tools shared on the
open and hidden parts of RuNet or Russian-speaking Internet. Many of these Russian-speaking
hackers are
actually Ukrainians .
Some of the Russian hackers also worked for the FSB, like the members of Shaltai
Boltai group that were later arrested for treason. George Eliason claims Shaltai Boltai
actually worked for Ukrainians. For a short version of the story read this:
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian
intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at
one of his recent essays...
Patrick
Armstrong , May 14 2020 15:27 utc |
3 Wow! You've done it again. I was just writing my Sitrep and thinking what an amazing
coincidence it is that, just as the Russian pipelaying ship arrived to finish Nord Stream,
Merkel is told that them nasty Russkies are doing nasty things. I come here and you've
already solved it. Yet another scoop. Congratulations.
The NYT has removed that sentence about the attack on internet/phone access:
"Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed responsibility for a 2016
cyberattack in which 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services. The
attack was carried out by a British citizen, not Russia. The article also misstated when the
attack took place. It was in November, not December. The sentence has been removed from the
article. "
From this we can learn that anything can be blamed by MSM, completely independent of what the
facts are. It is not limited to allegations related to Russia or China, but any and all
claims by MSM that have no direct reference to provable fact.
great coverage b... thank you... facts don't matter.. what matters is taking down any
positive image of russia, or better - putting up a constantly negative one... of this the
intel and usa msm are consistent... the sad reality is a lot of people will believe this
bullshit too...
i was just reading paul robinsons blog last night -
#DEMOCRACY RIP AND THE NARCISSISM OF RUSSIAGATE .. even paul is starting to getting
pissed off on the insanity of the media towards russia which is rare from what i have read
from him!
@ 3 patrick armstrong.. keep up the good work!! thanks for your work..
There is already a correction made to the DT attack - someone reads MofA! Shame they don't
get more of their new interpretation form here.
Whole piece reads here like it started as a Merkel gets close to Russia piece, shown
around to colleagues and politicians for feedback, and a ton of fake "why Merkel actually
hates the Russians" nonsense was added in.
After all pretty much everyone has tapped Merkel's phone by now.
The Bullshitter's going to be out of a job if he doesn't watch it!
Hey guys, not that this is a contest, but you have missed one tiny detail. The
contribution of my country to this great victory: the sacrifice of 27m Russians in some of
the bloodiest battles of the war. https://t.co/WYxKyhySvN
In a wide-ranging interview, Russian Ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, discussed
Victory Day, Russia's relations with its wartime allies, conspiracy theories about COVID-19,
sanctions, disinformation and more.
####
All at the link.
Again, what is the point of 'main stream journalism'? Chizov is a slick diplomat who more
than ably bats away Gotev's lazy and repetitive accusations. Just keep on asking the same
questions in the hope that the answers (and reality) might magically change? It's just a
another wasted opportunity, avenues not taken, questions not asked. Clichés and
stereotypes.
Sanctions have failed and are going nowhere. Containment doesn't work in a globalized
world except somewhat arguable for small countries like Venezuela or i-Ran, but the amount of
political time and economic energy spent for such little return delivers is nothing much more
than pointless punishment, and creating even more enemies.
In macro, I guess Russian (and China) are just having to wait for the west to sort out its
own identity issues without deliberately inflaming relations, save for when pushback is
necessary. Is this century the west's existential crisis of identity & bellybutton
wiggling why me!? It's all very freudian.
Strange to say, completed during this pandemic that threatens civilization, as Dimka said
a few weeks ago. I hope the construction workers all wore masks and regularly washed their
hands.
We were right from the beginning. The international health officials will struggle for
awhile yet, but someday somebody will have some 'splainin' to do. Unless they're going to try
that horseshit that social distancing and clapping for frontline workers stopped it dead. And
that's unlikely, because the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is the development of a
vaccine, which all nations will buy and stockpile.
Jesus H Christ. That is impressive in design and execution. The Western equivalent of a
spiritual center is Wall Street where greed and narcissism are idolized.
Absolutely remarkable; in fact, 'stunning', as he uses it, is not too much of a stretch. The
'liberal elites' just go right on lying even though the sworn testimony of FBI interviewers
is available for anyone to read, as well as the chilling manipulations of Strozk and Page,
both of whom should be in prison and perhaps will be. And that fucker Schiff should swing. I
can't believe the transformation of Carlson from Bush shill to the reincarnation of Edward R.
Murrow. He makes this case so compellingly that nobody could watch that clip and not believe
that Flynn was railroaded from the outset. And what were they allegedly going to jail Flynn's
son for? Does anyone know? Were they just going to make something up? That is terrifying, and
almost argues for the disbanding of the FBI, although it demonstrably still contains honest
agents – as Carlson asks rhetorically, how many times have they done this already, and
gotten away with it?
It's hard to imagine anyone would vote Democrat now.
Couldn't have been too much of a crime, if they offered to let him go in exchange for Flynn
pleading guilty to lying. Actually, you'd kind of think their business was prosecuting crimes
whoever committed them, and that offering to excuse a crime in exchange for a guilty plea is
.kind of a crime.
Man, they have to clean house at the FBI. And there probably are several other
organizations that need it, too. Not the political culling based on ideology that was a
feature of the Bush White House, but the crowd that's in now just cannot be allowed to get
off with nothing.
Greetings Mark and all, I am a new arrival as Jen suggested the company is fine here for
barflies to ponder the world. Can I surmise that if Flynn and son were the FBI targets for
nefarious business dealings then surely Biden and son fall in to that same category. After
all Biden and son filched millions after arranging a USA loan of $1Billion to Ukraine and
then did it again after the IMF loaned a few million more. Carpetbagging and its modern day
practice is a crime in the USA last I looked.
If that conspicuous bias isn't enough cause to dismember the FBI then consider the Uranium
One deal that Hillary Clinton and family set up or perhaps the Debbie Wasserman Shultz
fostering the Awan family spy and blackmail ring.
Good day, Uncle, and welcome! For some reason I can't fathom, the Democrats seem to own or
control all the 'respectable' media in the USA. FOX News is an exception, and has been a
mouthpiece for the Republicans since its inception. But the Democrats control the New York
Times and the Washington Post, which together represent the bulk of American public feeling
to foreigners, and probably to the domestic audience as well. They are extremely active on
conflicts between the two parties, ensuring the Democratic perspective gets put forward in
calm, reasonable why-wouldn't-a-sensible-person-think-this-way manner. At the same time they
cast horrific aspersions at the Republicans. Not that either are much good; but the news
coverage is very one-sided – the position of the Democrats on the sexual-assault furor
over the Kavanaugh appointment compared with their wait-and-see attitude to very similar
accusations against Biden is a classic example.
I don't think its the Democrats that control the NYT &WP, so much as plutocrats.
They're also the ones who fund both the Democrats & the Republicans. The only significant
difference between the parties is largely in the arena of the social "culture war" issues.
But on the issues plutocrats care about, like economic policy & foreign policy, the
differences are shades of grey, rather than actual distinctions.
Just remember the coverage of both papers in the run up to George W Shrub's catastrophic
Iraq war. They're stenographers, not journalists.
That may well be true, but the NYT and WP historically champion the Democrats, endorse the
Democratic candidate for president, and pander to Democratic issues and projects. The Wall
Street Journal is the traditional Republican print outlet, and there might be others but I
don't know them. CNN is overwhelmingly and weepily Democratic in its content – Wolf
Blitzer's eyes nearly roll back in his head with ecstasy whenever he mentions Saint Hillary
– while FOX News is Repubican to the bone and openly contemptuous of liberals. It could
certainly be, on reflection probably is, that the same cabal of corporatists control them
all, and a fine joke they must think it. And I certainly and emphatically agree there is
almost no difference between the parties in execution of external policy.
"... Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news? ..."
After a prescient 2017 tip from inside the FBI, a slow drip of revelations exposed the
deep problems with the Flynn prosecution.
####
All at the link.
I should add that the author, seasoned investigative reporter John Soloman, wrote much of
this over at TheHill.com and was targeted for review over his clearly labelled 'opinion'
pieces reporting on the Bidens in the Ukraine. The Hill's conclusion is piss weak and accuses
him of what just about every other journalist in the US does and reads in particular of
holding him up to a much higher standard than others. As you will see from his twatter bio,
he's worked for AP, Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Hill. Some things you are
just not supposed to investigate, let alone report.
At an absolute minimum, the FBI officials involved – except those who did their jobs
properly and stated their judgments at the outset that there was no evidence Flynn was not
telling the truth, or believed he was – should be fired and their pensions, if
applicable, rescinded.
Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections
to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have
to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news?
Here we come to the Fourth Pillar of Sufficient Totalitarianism: Repetition, repetition,
repetition. In Mein Kampf (now removed from Amazon) Adolf said that propaganda should not
be entrusted to.intellectuals They are, he said, easily bored, like sophisticated ideas,
and constantly want to change the message.
Hitler indeed said it while criticizing German WWI propaganda and praising the British
one. Hitler was talking of what he learned form British propaganda and that it should be
emulated:
Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid aesthetes and blase intellectuals should
never be allowed to take the lead. The former would readily transform the impressive
character of real propaganda into something suitable only for literary tea parties. As to
the second class of people, one must always beware of this pest; for, in consequence of
their insensibility to normal impressions, they are constantly seeking new excitements.
Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always long for change and will
always be incapable of putting themselves in the position of picturing the wants of their
less callous fellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone trying to
understand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first to criticize propaganda, or
rather its message, because this appears to them to be outmoded and trivial.
And he praised British propaganda for appealing to instincts not reason, staying on
message and never being objective:
In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent
example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass
consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these
fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as
effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of
the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on
it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.
But in England they came to understand something further: namely, that the possibility
of success in the use of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and
that when employed in this way it brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.
In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it
represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for
shirkers of the modest hero type.
Vilification of the enemy by British and American propaganda worked:
On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By
picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their
soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The most terrific
weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmed the information that
they had already received and their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their
respective governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred against the
infamous foe was increased. The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was only
another illustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of
the Entente no time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their own
weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feel that the
information which he received at home was untrue.
While Germans did not have that strong animus to vilify. They rather ridiculed the enemy
and it was a mistake:
It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as the
Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of doing in their propaganda. The very
principle here is a mistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our
soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results.
Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had
been deceived by the manufacturers of the information which had been given him. Therefore,
instead of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite
the contrary effect. Finally he lost heart.
And the greatest mistake of German propaganda was that sometimes it was trying to be
objective or even handed:
The aim of propaganda is not to try to pass judgment on conflicting rights, giving each
its due, but exclusively to emphasize the right which we are asserting. Propaganda must not
investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side,
present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that
aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side.
It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who was responsible for the
outbreak of the war and declare that the sole responsibility could not be attributed to
Germany. The sole responsibility should have been laid on the shoulders of the enemy,
without any discussion whatsoever.
And what was the consequence of these half-measures? The broad masses of the people are
not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who
are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human
children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. As soon as our own
propaganda made the slightest suggestion that the enemy had a certain amount of justice on
his side, then we laid down the basis on which the justice of our own cause could be
questioned. The masses are not in a position to discern where the enemy's fault ends and
where our own begins
"... It's not been a great week for proponents of Russiagate conspiracies. A release of transcripts of meetings of the American House of Representatives Intelligence Committee revealed that person after person interviewed by the Committee denied having any knowledge of collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign on the one hand and the Russian state on the other. This was despite the fact that many of those so interviewed had claimed in public that such collusion had taken place. The discrepancy between their public and private utterances has rightfully been interpreted as further evidence that the whole collusion story was a fabrication from start to finish. ..."
"... Collusion was only half of Russiagate. The other half was the allegation of Russian 'interference' in the US election, founded especially on claims that the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, had hacked and leaked documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This allegation was based on research undertaken by a private company Crowdstrike, but now the Intelligence Committee minutes reveal that Crowdstrike couldn't even confirm that how the DNC data had been leaked let alone that the Russians were responsible. All they had, according to the testimony, was 'circumstantial evidence' and 'indicators' – not exactly solid proof. ..."
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. [Gone with the Wind]
It's not been a great week for proponents of Russiagate conspiracies. A release of
transcripts of meetings of the American House of Representatives Intelligence Committee
revealed that person after person interviewed by the Committee denied having any knowledge of
collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign on the one hand and the Russian state on the
other. This was despite the fact that many of those so interviewed had claimed in public that
such collusion had taken place. The discrepancy between their public and private utterances has
rightfully been interpreted as further evidence that the whole collusion story was a
fabrication from start to finish.
Collusion was only half of Russiagate. The other half was the allegation of Russian
'interference' in the US election, founded especially on claims that the Russian military
intelligence service, the GRU, had hacked and leaked documents from the Democratic National
Committee (DNC). This allegation was based on research undertaken by a private company
Crowdstrike, but now the Intelligence Committee minutes reveal that Crowdstrike couldn't even
confirm that how the DNC data had been leaked let alone that the Russians were responsible. All
they had, according to the testimony, was 'circumstantial evidence' and 'indicators' –
not exactly solid proof.
Given this, you'd imagine that this would be a good time for Russiagaters to slink off into
a dark corner somewhere and hope that people forget all the nonsense they've been spouting for
the past four years. But not a bit of it, for what do we find in the latest edition of The
Atlantic magazine than an
article by Franklin Foer with the scary title 'Putin is well on the way to stealing the
next election'.
Foer is in some respects the original Russiagater. He was well ahead of the game, and in a
July 2016
article in Slate laid out the basic narrative many months before others latched
onto it. The article has it all: a scary title ('Putin's Puppet' – meaning Trump);
Vladimir Putin's evil plan to destroy Europe and the United States; a cast of characters with
allegedly dubious connections to the Kremlin (Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, etc.
– you met them first in Foer's article); Trump's supposed desperation to break into the
Moscow real estate market; allegations of Trump's lack of creditworthiness leading him to seek
shady Russian sources of finance; and so on – in short, the whole shebang long before it
was on anyone else's radar.
Not wanting to let a good story go to waste, Foer has been on it ever since, and gained a
certain amount of notoriety when he broke the 'story' that US President Donald Trump was
secretly exchanging messages with the Russian government via the computer servers of Alfa Bank.
Unfortunately for Foer, it didn't take more than a minute or three for researchers to expose
his revelation as utter nonsense. This, however, didn't seem to shake him. In the world of
journalism there appears to be no such thing as accountability for those who publish fake news
about Russians producing fake news, and so it is that Foer is back on the Russiagate wagon with
his new piece in the Atlantic , warning us that it's bad enough that Putin elected
Trump once, but now he's going to do it all over again.
The basic theme of Foer's latest is pretty much the same as in his original article of July
2016. Back then Foer informed readers that, 'Vladimir Putin has a plan for destroying the West
– and that plan looks a lot like Donald Trump'. 'The destruction of Europe is a grandiose
objective; so is the weakening of the United States', Foer went on, keen to let us know that
Putin's aims were nothing if not extreme ('The destruction of Europe' no less!!). Now, nearly
four years later, he tell us breathlessly that 'Vladimir Putin dreams of discrediting the
American democratic system' (How does he know this? Does he have some special dream detection
equipment he's snuck into the Kremlin? Alas, Foer doesn't tell.) According to Foer:
It's possible, however, to mistake a plot point – the manipulation of the 2016
election – for the full sweep of the narrative. Events in the United States have
unfolded more favorably than any operative in Moscow could have dreamed: Not only did
Russia's preferred candidate win, but he has spent his first term fulfilling the potential it
saw in him, discrediting American institutions, rending the seams of American culture, and
isolating a nation that had styled itself as indispensable to the free world. But instead of
complacently enjoying its triumph, Russia almost immediately set about replicating it.
Boosting the Trump campaign was a tactic; #DemocracyRIP remains the larger objective.
#DemocracyRIP?? Seriously? Where does Foer get this? I'm willing to offer him a challenge.
I'll pay him $100 (Canadian not US) if he can find anywhere, anywhere, any statement by
Vladimir Putin or another top official in the Russian Federation in which they state any sort
of preference for what sort of political system the United States has, and in particular state
a preference that the USA ceases to be a democracy. If he can't, he'll have to pay me $100. I'm
confident I'll win. The truth, as far as I can see, is that like Rhett Butler, they don't give
a damn. America can be a democracy, or an autocracy, or any other thing as far as they're
concerned, as long as it just leaves them alone. Insofar as thinking Russians do discuss the
matter, I get a strong impression they generally regard the problem not as being that America
is a democracy so much as being that it isn't, not really, as actual power is seen as lying in
the hands of special interests and some sort of version of the 'deep state'. More democracy,
not less, would be the preferred solution.
So where does all the nonsense about Putin wanting to destroy democracy come from? It
certainly doesn't come from anything he's ever said. And it certainly doesn't come from a
serious examination of Russia's true potential. Russia can no more destroy American democracy
than it send a man to Alpha Centauri. And its leaders know that perfectly well. So why do
Americans think that Putin is lying in his bed, 'dreaming' about the 'destruction of Europe',
the 'weakening of America' and '#DemocracyRIP'? I'll hazard a guess – it's a serious case
of narcissism. America believes it is the centre of the universe, and it also imagines itself a
democracy, and so it thinks that American democracy must be what's at the centre of everybody
else's universe too. Well, sorry, Franky boy, it just ain't so. #DemocracyRIP?? In your dreams,
perhaps, but certainly not in Putin's.
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time
this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry
into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell
admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing
Russians and Iranians covertly" ).
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to
Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His
comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :
Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James
Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan.
This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the
Russians."
He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as
part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in
exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus.
As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of
Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria -
international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of
government."
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery
He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding,
reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh
But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all
along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and
amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's
real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300
into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).
As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock
in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops
"securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.
* * *
Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in
Syria:
"... it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years. ..."
"... What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization ..."
"... And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all the rest of it. ..."
"... Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is. ..."
"... Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. ..."
"... And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility, corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn, the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to something beyond sinister. ..."
"... You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore. ..."
From the beginning of the story RussiaGate was always about Barack Obama . I didn't always see it that way, certainly. My seething
hatred for all things Hillary Clinton is a powerful blind spot I admit to freely.
But, it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the
only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years.
We've known this for a couple of years now but there were a seemingly endless series of distractions put in place to obfuscate
the truth...
Donald Trump was not a Russian agent.
What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy
on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years.
It was de rigeur by the time the election cycle ramped up in 2016. The timing of events is during that time period paints a very
damning picture.
This article from Zerohedge by way of
Conservative Treehouse lays out the timing, the activities and the shifts in the narrative that implicate Obama beyond any doubt.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the
database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization. Thus
begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.
And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the
NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all
the rest of it.
The details are all there for anyone with eyes willing to see, the question is whether anyone deep in the throes of Trump Derangement
Syndrome will take their eyes off the shadow play in front of them long enough to look.
I'm not holding my breath.
Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services
to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking
U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is.
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
May 12, 2020
... ... ...
These people obviously missed the key point about Goebbels' Big Lie theory of propaganda. For it to work there has to be a nugget
of truth to wrap the lie in before you can repeat it endlessly to make it real. And that's why RussiaGate is dead. Long live ObamaGate.
Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts
of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee.
None of them were willing to testify under oath, and be guilty of perjury, to the effect that Trump was colluding with the Russians.
But, they'd say it on TV, Twitter and anywhere else they could to attack Trump with patent nonsense.
Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will
roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. Some of them will fall on their sword for Obama.
But I don't think Trump will be satisfied with that. He has to know that Obama is the key to truly draining the Swamp if that
is, in fact, his goal. Because if he doesn't attack Obama now, Obama will be formidable in October. Both men are fighting for their
lives at this point.
Trump was supposed to roll over and play nice. But Pat Buchanan rightly had him pegged at the beginning of this back in January
of 2017, saying that Trump wasn't like Nixon, he wouldn't walk away to protect the office of the Presidency. He would fight to the
bitter end because that's who he is.
And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility,
corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering
classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn,
the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to
something beyond sinister.
You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a
New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian
dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore.
"... House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election . ..."
"... Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment. ..."
"... Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz . ..."
"... Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election. ..."
Former CIA director John Brennan suppressed intelligence which
indicated that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because "she was a known quantity," vs. the
unpredictable Donald Trump, according to Fox News ' Ed Henry.
During a Tuesday night discussion with Tucker Carlson, Henry said that Brennan "also had
intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity,
she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin's team thought she was more malleable,
while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable."
Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin has fond memories of the time Bill Clinton
hung out at his 'private homestead' during the same trip where he collected a $500,000
payday for a speech at a Moscow bank, right before the Uranium One deal was approved.
And as
Breitbart 's Joel Pollak notes, Henry's claim backs up a similar
allegation by former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz , who said on
April 22:
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation
reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan
suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more
predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .
Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet
intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted
Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also
objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia
claim made by Fleitz .
Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama
administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the
Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI
knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before
they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.
And now, Brennan is a contributor on MSNBC. How fitting.
Russian 'meddling' in the 2016 US presidential election has become an article of faith, not
just among Democrats but many Republicans as well, thanks to the endless repetition of vague
talking points, none of which hold water. It all began with the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) claiming in June 2016 that Russia hacked their computers, after documents were published
revealing the party's rigging of the primaries. This was followed by Hillary Clinton accusing
her rival for the presidency Donald Trump that he was "colluding" with Russia by
asking Moscow for her emails – the ones she deleted from a private server she used to
conduct State Department business, that is.
With a little help of the mainstream media, which overwhelmingly endorsed Clinton and
predicted her victory, her efforts to cover up her email scandal turned into Russia
"hacking our democracy," eventually spawning the 'Russiagate' investigation led by
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a series of failed attempts to derail Trump's election and
oust him from the White House.
Lie #1: Russia hacked the DNC
The infamous US intelligence community assessment (ICA) of January 2017, and the Senate
Intelligence Committee report based on it – as well as 'analysis' by actual election
meddlers , among others – all claimed that the Russian government and President
Vladimir Putin personally were behind the "hack" and publication of DNC documents.
These have always been assertions, and no evidence was ever provided.
Last week's declassification
of 50+ interviews in the probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee revealed that
the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, brought in by the DNC lawyers to fix the "hack,"
did not have evidence either.
CrowdStrike's president, ex-FBI official Shawn Henry, testified that they "saw
activity that we believed was consistent with activity we'd seen previously and had
associated with the Russian Government." [emphasis added]
In the same testimony, Henry also testified that CrowdStrike never had any evidence the
data was actually "exfiltrated," i.e. stolen from the DNC servers.
I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the
accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no
direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike
president Shaun Henry: pic.twitter.com/UCGSyO2rLt
CrowdStrike's feelings about the hack remain the only "evidence" so far, since the
FBI never asked them or the DNC for the actual server, as Henry also confirmed. Meanwhile,
former NSA official and whistleblower William Binney argued back in November 2017 that actual
evidence showed a leak from the inside, not a hack.
There is likewise zero proof that the Russian government had anything to do with the
private email account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chair, which a staffer admitted had
been compromised when someone fell for a phishing scam.
Instead, the key argument that WikiLeaks was somehow 'colluding' with Russia over the
publication of the emails rests on a conspiracy theory promoted by the Clinton campaign
staff, after RT reported on a fresh batch of emails before WikiLeaks got around to tweeting
about them – but after they were published on the website and available to anyone
willing to do actual journalism.
In fact, the existence of RT has been a major "argument" of Russiagaters; a third
of the ICA intended to show 'Russian meddling' consisted of a four-year-old appendix about
RT that was in no way relevant to the 2016 situation but lamented its coverage of
fracking and 'Occupy Wall Street' protests, for example.
Lie #3: The Steele 'pee tape'
dossier was irrelevant
As it later emerged, Clinton's claims about 'Russian collusion' were based on a dodgy
dossier her campaign
commissioned through the DNC and a firm called Fusion GPS from a British spy named
Christopher Steele. It said that the Kremlin was blackmailing Trump with a tape of depraved
sex acts in a Moscow hotel, with prostitutes supposedly paid to urinate on a bed President
Barack Obama had slept on.
It was clearly ridiculous and entirely evidence-free. Democrats claimed it played no role
in Russia investigations. Yet the FBI paid Steele for information from the dossier, and used
it to justify a FISA warrant for the surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page –
and with him the campaign itself – starting right before the election, and renewed
three times.
By January 2020, the DOJ had formally disavowed the dossier and all four FISA warrants,
along with any information obtained from them, saying "there was insufficient predication
to establish probable cause."
Lie #4: General Michael Flynn treasonously colluded
with Russia and lied about it to the FBI
Trump's first national security adviser was hounded out of the White House after less than
two weeks on the job, after media leaks insinuated he had improperly discussed sanctions with
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, violating the Logan Act, and then lied to the FBI about
it.
After FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump in May 2017, he told the media the
president had urged him to drop the investigation of Flynn, which was quickly construed as
"obstruction" and used as one of the pretexts to appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel
into 'Russiagate.'
When actual evidence was finally coaxed out of prosecutors, however, it showed that the
FBI sought to frame Flynn in a perjury trap, and that the people involved were Comey himself,
his deputy Andrew McCabe, disgraced lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and others. All
charges against Flynn were dropped.
Flynn didn't even lie to Strzok and the other agent interviewing him – and the memo
of that conversation had been first heavily edited, then destroyed. Basically, everything
about the Flynn case has been as false as ABC's December 2017 bombshell report about his
"collusion" with Russia that got Brian Ross fired.
When Mueller's final report came out, in the spring of 2019, it found zero evidence of
"collusion" but insisted there had been Russian "meddling" in the election. The
only trouble was that he had no proof of meddling ,
basing it entirely on the above-mentioned intelligence "assessments" and his own
indictments.
A Russian company named in one of the indictments actually contested it in US court and
won. First, a federal judge slapped down Mueller's prosecutors for violating rules by
presenting allegations as "established" and "confirmed" facts and ruling that
no link was actually established behind a catering company accused of "sowing discord"
on social media – a far cry from hacking the DNC! – and the Russian
government.
The DOJ quietly dropped that
particular case in March, just as coronavirus shutdowns were starting across the US, using
"recent events" and a change in classification of some of its evidence as a
face-saving excuse.
Lie #6: Paul Manafort was Trump's conduit to Russia
Paul Manafort, who ran Trump's campaign between March and August 2016, was convicted of
multiple counts of conspiracy against the US and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. However,
despite repeated attempts by the media to present him as some kind of liaison between Trump
and Russia, the entirety of things that got him in trouble with the law had to do with tax
evasion on money he made lobbying for and in Ukraine.
During the two trials against Manafort, it emerged that he and his business partner Rick
Gates had worked with Podesta's brother Tony to fleece Ukrainian oligarchs for years, and
stash the profits in tax havens.
The Ukrainian officials who leaked the so-called "black ledger" implicating
Manafort to the US media were even convicted of election
meddling by a court in Kiev, and the whole thing may have been solicited by a
Ukrainian-American DNC contractor The US media have been curiously uninterested in that
particular "collusion," needless to say.
Peel back all these layers of misinformation, like an onion, and what's left is an empty
talking point, endlessly repeated by Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-California), that
"Russia hacked our democracy."
The charge is vague enough that it can mean anything, and deliberately so. No evidence is
ever offered, because there isn't any – as the years of investigations and boxes full
of documents have clearly shown.
Here is some theory from what I read/hear over there...No idea which side play the
informants, but so as to make some sense due the last tendences at least in Europe and the
moves y Trump and the "deep state"
According to Daniel Estulin ( and not sure whether I take him right, due his Spanish
)there is a current fight amongst the liberal financial banking elites and the old European
aristocratic elites and old ( very old )money, being the later those who lost the last WWII
by betting it all on fascism ( overtly or covertly ), and who try to redesign the world by
undoing current nation-states to then try to rebuilt and recover former European empires,
like Austro-Hungarian one ( in fact, there have been already moves these past days, even
during the pamdemic lockdown, amongst the Visegrads in this sense, on the part of Hungary and
Romania...), the IV Reich, and so on...
Trump would be, what he calls "international black", not an accident rised to power y the
deplorables, but a well planned move by those elites behind supporting him, who think the
world has become unmanageable under liberal democracy. These, what they seek, is a
middle-ageization of the world, with a hierarchical order kept tight through authoritarian
rule where, after the galloping advance of the 6th technological paradygm, about 90% of known
jobs will be lost, without time for the population to reconvert into something useful. To
justify that and advance it without intercourse of a decade or so, plus without facing any
resistance at all, the virus came, one would say, like fallen from the sky...
In the middle, are us all, the working class, the peasants, and the middle class ( upper,
middle, and low ) who never left being working class, eventhough the brainsucking by loans,
hollywood, hyperconsum through big malls cheap fashion clothes, a bit of travelling, and TV.
All disposable people....as got demonstrated during the "live exercise"....All jobs related
to services, tourism, clothing, cosmetics, will be lost if not those related to the luxury
sector, feed by the elites.
What is left for us is what got well illustrated in the hunger games, some will run to
aspire to get some crumbs, but at such price...
Of course, some amongst us, as always, are already positioning themselves as the new brown
shirts, online... and on terrain....
What all those calls for denouncing your breaking lockdown neighbor, or even the one not
clapping down at 8pm ( like authomats every day, during two months! )do you think were
for?
To test....
Over the past three years Donald J. Trump has delivered on his promise to be the "best
friend in Washington that Israel has ever had."
...That Trump was willing to highlight and promote a major pander to the Israel Lobby on the
very day he was inaugurated is more than just telling, it is bizarre.
... ... ...'Deep-seated ignorance' or 'calculated snub'?
The apparent oversight or blunder does not appear surprising if one takes a closer look at
the modern American approach to history, argues Peter Kuznick, professor of History and
Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University.
"The problem is that it is what most Americans are taught in the schools and by the
media. If you ask Americans who won WWII, most will say it was the US," Kuznick told RT. He
added that many people in the US have a "deep-seated ignorance about all things
historical."
But Jim Jatras, a former US diplomat, believes that the wording of the message was
intentional.
"It is a calculated insult, a snub" directed against modern-day Russia, he said.
Jatras says that such an approach stems from Washington's desire to portray itself as the only
world leader – and the world's policeman, who dictates to others what to do.
The US is projecting the modern view of American dominance as the leader of the
"progressive world" on history, including that of WWII. The complexities of the war are terra
incognita, as far as most Americans are concerned.
"They have a reckless attitude towards insulting other countries," Jatras adds. The
fact that many Americans are enthralled by "fundamental" historical myths perpetuated by
the media only makes things worse, Kuznick says.
He adds that these myths particularly include the idea that it was the US that won the war
in Europe (American soldiers set foot on the ground in Normandy almost five years after the war
began and well after the tide had changed against Germany on the eastern front), and that the
American nuclear bombs dropped on Japan helped "save lives" by ending the war
(historians still disagree whether the bombings had any military meaning, and they coincided
with the Soviet Union's massive advance on Japan-occupied China, as per an agreement with the
US).
Kuznick says the historical myths also put the blame for the ensuing Cold War solely on the
Soviet Union. However, rather than being isolated in history textbooks, these misconceptions
actually shape modern-day attitudes.
"They are all very dangerous because the way people understand history is going to shape
the way they act in the world now and the way they will behave in the future Perpetuating these
kinds of myths is just so irresponsible."
When Putin came to power 20 years ago, he was a pro-western leader who, in the aftermath of the 9/11
terrorist attacks on the US, sought to recreate a contemporary version of the wartime grand alliance.
Putin's vision of renewed great power collaboration has been undermined but not yet obliterated by a succession
of Russian-Western crises and disputes over Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, as well as NATO
expansionism, the Skripal poisoning affair and Donald Trump's election as American president.
Critics often accuse Putin of being opposed to a rules-based world order. Rather, it is that he rejects
the self-serving rules some western states are seeking to impose on Russia under the guise of improving global
security.
As recently as January this year, Putin called for a five-power summit of the UN Security Council's
permanent members - Russia, China, the US, France and Britain - to discuss common economic, security and
environmental issues.
Maybe we can hope the current emergency will re-energise efforts to achieve a multi-lateral approach to
global challenges without the necessity for war.
Geoffrey Roberts is Emeritus Professor of History at University College
Cork.
His latest book (with Martin Folly and Oleg Rzheshevsky) is Churchill and Stalin: Comrades-in-Arms during
the Second World War.
Under the subtitle The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare, Thomas Rid helps remind us how we reached this
morass, one with antecedents reaching back to Czarist Russia and the Bolshevik revolution. To be sure, the US can use all the help
it can get as it navigates the current election cycle and the lies, rumours and
uncertainty that
shroud the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.
Rid was born in West Germany amid the cold war. The Berlin Wall fell when he was a teenager. He is now a professor at Johns Hopkins.
So what are “active measures”? Previously, Rid
testified they were “semi-covert or covert intelligence operations to shape an adversary’s political decisions”.
“Almost always,” he explained, “active measures conceal or falsify the source.”
The special counsel’s report framed them more narrowly as “operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing
the course of international affairs”. Add in technology and hacking, and an image of modern asymmetric warfare emerges.
Rid travels back to the early years of communist
Russia, recounting the efforts of the government to discredit the remnants of the ancien régime and squash attempts to restore
the monarchy. The Cheka, the secret police, hatched a plot that involved forged correspondence, a fictitious organization, a fake
counter-revolutionary council and a government-approved travelogue.
Words and narratives morphed into readily transportable munitions. The émigré community was declawed and the multi-pronged combination
deemed “wildly successful”. The project also “served as an inspiration for future active measures”. A template had been set.
Fast forward to the cold war and the aftermath of the US supreme court’s landmark school desegregation case. The tension between
reality and the text and aspirations of the Declaration of Independence was in the open again. Lunch-counter sit-ins and demands
for the vote filled newspapers and TV screens. The fault lines were plainly visible – and the Soviet Union pounced.
In 1960, the KGB embarked on a “series of race-baiting disinformation operations” that included mailing Ku Klux Klan leaflets
to African and Asian delegations to the United Nations on the eve of a debate on colonialism. At the same time, Russian “operators
posed as an African American organization agitating against the KKK”.
More than a half-century later, Russia ran an updated version of the play. Twitter came to host
the fake accounts of both “John Davis”, ostensibly a gun-toting Texas Christian and family man, and @BlacktoLive”, along with
hundreds of others.
The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll factory, organized pro-Confederate flag rallies.
As detailed by Robert Mueller, the IRA also claimed that the civil war was not “about slavery” and instead was “all about money”,
a false trope that continues to gain resonance among Trump supporters and proponents of the “liberate the states” movement. According
to Brian
Westrate, treasurer of the Wisconsin Republican party, “the Confederacy was more about states’ rights than slavery.”
Depicting West Germany as Hitler’s heir was another aim. At the time, “some aging former Nazis still held positions of influence”,
Rid writes. In the late 1960s, “encouraging ‘anti-German tendencies in the West’ was very much a priority”.
In 1964, with Russian assistance, Czech intelligence mounted
Operation Neptun, sinking
Nazi wartime
documents to the bottom of the ominous sounding Black Lake, near the German border. The cache was then “discovered” – media pandemonium
ensued. Four years later the mastermind of the scheme, Ladislav Bittman, defected to the US.
Prior to 2016, Russia’s most notable active measure using the US as a foil was the lie that Aids was “made in the USA”. In retaliation
for US reports of Soviet use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan, the KGB unfurled Operation Denver, a multi-platformed campaign that
falsely claimed “Aids
was an American biological weapon developed at Fort Detrick, Maryland”. Central to the effort was the earlier publication of
an anonymous letter with a New York byline by an Indian newspaper. The forged missive claimed “Aids may invade India: mystery disease
caused by US lab experiments.”
To achieve their goals, the pro-NATO propagandists often exploit the so-called
'Russian threat' concept; however, this merely provides a cover for their aggressive
actions to silence and discredit opposing opinions and sources of information they deem to
be counter to their own interests.
The reason behind their activity is simple – they must justify their existence
in reports to their sponsors. They are constantly and fiercely working to engineer
'successful actions' regardless of their validity. In order to continue securing funding to
expose and defeat an imaginary enemy, they must create imaginary victories, irrespective of
reality.
Uh, the author obviously knows better so why promote this narrative? These operatives
are not going after "wrong", or "invalid" targets to justify their funding. They're
specifically hired to do what they're doing now.
This is nationwide gaslighting by Clinton gang of neoliberals who attempted coup d'état, and Adam Schiff was just one of the
key figures in this coupe d'état, king of modern Joe McCarthy able and willing to destroy a person using false evidence
What is interesting is that Tucker attacked Republicans for aiding and abetting the coup
d'état against Trump
"... "This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating actions taken before "and after ... the election." ..."
"... And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page . ..."
"... "Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. " ..."
"... " It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with "Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. ..."
"... Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on . ..."
John Durham has supercharged his review into the origins of the
Russiagate hoax orchestrated by the Obama administration during and after the 2016 US election
- adding additional top prosecutors to explore different components of the original probe,
according to
Fox News .
Durham, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut tasked with by Attorney General Bill Barr with
investigating the actions taken against the Trump team, has tapped Jeff Jensen - U.S. attorney
for the Eastern District of Missouri who had been investigating the Michael Flynn case. Also
added to the team is interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea,
according to Fox 's sources.
" They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn't want to
be distracted ," said one source, adding "He's going full throttle, and they're looking at
everything. "
Word of Durham's beefed-up team comes amid worsening tensions between the Trump
administration and congressional Democrats, who have been making the case that the Justice
Department's reviews have become politicized given the decision last week to drop the Flynn
case - a move which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called
"outrageous."
" The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming ," said Nadler - who probably wasn't
referring to handwritten notes by one of the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn which
exposed their perjury trap . Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his perfectly
legal communications with a Russian ambassador - a plea he made while under severe financial
strain due to legal expenses, and to save his son from the FBI 'witch hunt.' Flynn would later
withdraw his plea as evidence mounted that he was set up.
The DOJ determined that the bureau's 2017 Flynn interview -- which formed the basis for
his guilty plea of lying to investigators -- was "conducted without any legitimate
investigative basis."
Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be
reconsidered. Documents unsealed the prior week by the Justice Department revealed agents
discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning
whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit
wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been
set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was
accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he
pleaded guilty. -
Fox News
Jensen, the U.S. attorney now working with Durham, was reportedly the one who recommended
dropping the Flynn case to Barr.
Barr speaks
When asked whether he thought the FBI conspired against Flynn, Barr told CBS News on
Thursday "I think, you know, that's a question that really has to wait [for] an analysis of all
the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of
President Trump's administration," adding that Durham is "still looking at all of this."
"This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and
we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating
actions taken before "and after ... the election."
And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which
includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page .
President Trump has long-referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" - which Barr and
Durham are now untangling.
"Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been
briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. "
President Trump on Friday offered a vague, but ominous, warning as the Durham probe
proceeds.
" It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with
"Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible
people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. "
Trump
was specifically reacting to newly released transcripts of interviews from the House
Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation
that revealed top Obama officials acknowledged they knew of no "empirical evidence" of a
conspiracy despite their concerns and suspicions. -
Fox News
Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected
to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on .
R ep. Lee Zeldin demanded that Rep. Adam Schiff be stripped
of his post as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and resign because of his role in
the Russia investigation.
"Adam Schiff should not be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. His gavel should
be removed. He should be censured. He should resign," Zeldin said Monday on Fox News. "There's
a lot that should happen, but Nancy Pelosi isn't going to punish Adam Schiff. In fact, that's
the reason why he has the gavel in the first place."
Republicans have been critical of Schiff in recent weeks after reports suggested that
Schiff was trying to block the release of some of the transcripts of the investigation's 53
witness interviews.
Some of the transcripts were eventually released and
undercut claims used by Democrats to push for impeachment.
"He's the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which became the House Impeachment
Committee because of the way he writes these fairy-tale parodies," Zeldin said.
The Republican from New York suggested that Schiff and Democrats who impeached Trump and
tried to remove him from office were aided by friends in the media.
"It's actually one that the Democrats reward. It's one that the media rewards," Zeldin said.
"So, I'm not going to expect any repercussions even though he should resign today."
So the RussiaGate was giant gaslighting of the US electorate by Clinton gang and intelligence
agencies rogues.
Notable quotes:
"... For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks ..."
"... Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left." ..."
"... This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up" selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network. ..."
"... Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive." ..."
"... Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly crumbled. ..."
"... Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See: "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."] ..."
"... Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A: "You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a harbinger of things to come. This video clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it. ..."
"... Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come. ..."
For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have
the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too.
House Intelligence Committee
documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that
the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers
to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016.
The until-now-buried, closed-door testimony came on Dec. 5, 2017 from Shawn Henry, a
protégé of former FBI Director Robert Mueller (from 2001 to 2012), for whom
Henry served as head of the Bureau's cyber crime investigations unit.
Henry retired in 2012 and took a senior position at CrowdStrike, the cyber security firm
hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to investigate the cyber intrusions that occurred
before the 2016 presidential election.
The following excerpts from Henry's testimony
speak for themselves. The dialogue is not a paragon of clarity; but if read carefully, even
cyber neophytes can understand:
Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians
exfiltrated the data from the DNC? when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have
indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was
exfiltrated (sic). There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say
conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't
have the evidence that says it actually left.
Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you
know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence
that they actually were exfiltrated?
Mr. Henry: There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's
circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.
Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually
left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?
Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the
network.
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've
indicated.
Mr. Henry: "We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data
left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.
In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic:
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we
believe it left, based on what we saw."
Inadvertently highlighting the tenuous underpinning for CrowdStrike's "belief" that Russia
hacked the DNC emails, Henry added: "There are other nation-states that collect this type of
intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were
consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state."
Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry's testimony. Henry is asked when
"the Russians" exfiltrated the data from DNC.
Henry: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC,
but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated." ?? pic.twitter.com/TyePqd6b5P
Try as one may, some of the testimony remains opaque. Part of the problem is ambiguity in
the word "exfiltration."
The word can denote (1) transferring data from a computer via the Internet (hacking) or
(2) copying data physically to an external storage device with intent to leak it.
As the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has been reporting for more than
three years, metadata and other hard forensic evidence indicate that the DNC emails were not
hacked – by Russia or anyone else.
Rather, they were copied onto an external storage device (probably a thumb drive) by
someone with access to DNC computers. Besides, any hack over the Internet would almost
certainly have been discovered by the dragnet coverage of the National Security Agency and
its cooperating foreign intelligence services.
Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be
exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up"
selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been
detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network.
Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn
affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from
the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks
demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb
drive."
The So-Called Intelligence Community Assessment
There is not much good to be said about the embarrassingly evidence-impoverished
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017 accusing Russia of hacking the
DNC.
But the ICA did include two passages that are highly relevant
and demonstrably true:
(1) In introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution", the authors of the ICA made a
highly germane point: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations
difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation – malicious or not –
leaves a trail."
(2) "When analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' [these] are not intended
to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment
does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
[And one might add that they commonly ARE wrong when analysts succumb to political pressure,
as was the case with the ICA.]
The intelligence-friendly corporate media, nonetheless, immediately awarded the status of
Holy Writ to the misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" (it was a rump effort
prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only CIA, FBI, and NSA), and chose to overlook the
banal, full-disclosure-type caveats embedded in the assessment itself.
Then National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the directors of the CIA, FBI, and
NSA briefed President Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017, the day before they gave it
personally to President-elect Donald Trump.
On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama saw fit to use lawyerly language on
the key issue of how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks , in an apparent effort to cover
his own derriere.
Obama: "The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking
were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through
which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."
So we ended up with "inconclusive conclusions" on that admittedly crucial point. What
Obama was saying is that U.S. intelligence did not know -- or professed not to know --
exactly how the alleged Russian transfer to WikiLeaks was supposedly made, whether
through a third party, or cutout, and he muddied the waters by first saying it was a hack,
and then a leak.
From the very outset, in the absence of any hard evidence, from NSA or from its foreign
partners, of an Internet hack of the DNC emails, the claim that "the Russians gave the DNC
emails to WikiLeaks " rested on thin gruel.
In November 2018 at a public forum, I asked Clapper to explain why President Obama still
had serious doubts in late Jan. 2017, less than two weeks after Clapper and the other
intelligence chiefs had thoroughly briefed the outgoing president about their
"high-confidence" findings.
Clapper
replied : "I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we're, we're
pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails." Pretty
sure?
Preferring CrowdStrike; 'Splaining to Congress
CrowdStrike already had a tarnished reputation for credibility when the DNC and Clinton
campaign chose it to do work the FBI should have been doing to investigate how the DNC emails
got to WikiLeaks . It had asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's struggle with separatists supported
by Russia. A Voice of America
report explained why CrowdStrike was forced to retract that claim.
Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely
he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media
reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee
there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers.
"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,"
he said. Comey described
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.
Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and
devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our
forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's
involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.
Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a
few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:
BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate
– did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to
rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We
got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done
the work. But we didn't get direct access.
BURR: But no content?
COMEY: Correct.
BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence
standpoint?
COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who
were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that
they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.
In June last year it was
revealed that CrowdStrike never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the
government because the FBI never required it to, according to the Justice Department.
By any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in serious legal trouble,
as should Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. Additional evidence of FBI
misconduct under Comey seems to surface every week – whether the abuses of FISA,
misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading everyone about Russian
hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take
his passport. And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.
Schiff: Every Confidence, But No Evidence
Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly
crumbled.
Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows
Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report
failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition
research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See:
"The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."]
Five days after Trump took office, I had an opportunity to confront Schiff personally
about evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC emails. He had repeatedly given that canard the
patina of flat fact during an address at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta "think tank,"
The Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A:
"You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a
harbinger of things to come. This video
clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SdOy-l13FEg
Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows
Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the
origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges
against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to
keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come.
Given the timid way Trump has typically bowed to intelligence and law enforcement
officials, including those who supposedly report to him, however, one might rather expect
that, after a lot of bluster, he will let the too-big-to-imprison ones off the hook. The
issues are now drawn; the evidence is copious; will the Deep State, nevertheless, be able to
prevail this time?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy
is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to
clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office ."
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
"American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. "Fascism
in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for
war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and
using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races,
creeds and classes."
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission , Wallace said " Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War
III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well
as in war."
And you have to ask yourself one question. They all stuck with the same exact propaganda,
the same exact his information, that the Trump administration, that the Trump campaign
conspired with Russia, even though they had no evidence whatsoever, and they manufactured that
evidence against the president."
"And this is why all of them need to be investigated" explained Carter.
MSM now run under control of intelligence agencies and use State Department of Foreign Office talking points, much like in the USSR, where this role was played by communist Party
Notable quotes:
"... Part of the problem is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s, leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported factually and without a 'bent'. ..."
"... Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing. I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists. The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished. ..."
Trust in the written press in Britain is the lowest in 33 European countries. That's hardly surprising seeing how so many journalists
have become mere stenographers for, or lackeys of, the Establishment power elites. Just when you think the reputation of the UK media
couldn't sink any lower, it just did. An annual survey undertaken by EurobarometerEU, across 33 countries, puts the UK at the bottom,
with a net trust of -60. Yes that's right, minus 60 . It's a fall of 24 points since last year. Just 15 percent of Brits trust
their print media. But it's not the only survey showing a similar trend.
The attached graphic about trust in the written press, published last week, has not been widely reported in Britain. This is
a huge annual survey by @EurobarometerEU
across 33 countries. It's the ninth year out of the past ten that the UK has been last. We have a problem.
pic.twitter.com/8eYoQR7XZw
Newspapers came in rock bottom (with a rating of -50) in a YouGov poll on Sky where the question was asked, "How much do you
trust the following on Coronavirus?" And in case you think it's only the Sun we're talking about here, another poll showed that
distrust of so-called 'upmarket' papers was running at 52 percent.
How did we get here? I've got a collection of old newspapers and magazines dating back several decades. Part of the problem
is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s,
leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported
factually and without a 'bent'.
Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing.
I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed
the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these
terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade
his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists.
The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished.
As bad as the Iraq War propaganda was, things have got even worse since then. Obnoxious gatekeepers have ensured that the parameters
of what can and can't be said in print have narrowed still further.
In the mid-Noughties, I was writing regularly in the UK mainstream print media. So too was John Pilger. Our articles were popular
with readers, but not with the gatekeepers. When I
wrote a balanced, alternative
view on Belarus for the New Statesman in 2011, I came under fierce gatekeeper attack.
I forgot that on Belarus and many other issues, only one point of view was allowed. Silly me.
Only one thing can save UK print press
Today, the lack of diversity of opinion is one of the reasons why newspaper sales have crashed – (sales have
slumped by two-thirds in the past 20 years), and conversely why 'alternative' sites, and media outlets where a wide range of
opinions ARE heard have done so well. Who wants to pay money for a paper when the political views published in it range from pro-war
centrist-left, to pro-war centrist-right?
If there was a single newspaper or magazine column which examined forensically whether Labour really did have an anti-Semitism
'crisis' under Jeremy Corbyn, I must have missed it.
And apart from Mary Dejevsky in the i paper, where was the journalism examining the many inconsistencies in the official narrative
of the Skripal case? Why has 'Private Eye', which bills itself as 'anti-Establishment', not covered the ongoing Philip Cross Wikipedia
editing scandal ?
I'm sure the old 'Eye' of Richard Ingrams and Bron Waugh would have if Wikipedia had been around then.
And what about the Covid-19 coverage? Has any journalist asked the very simple question: if the virus is as bad as the government
says it is, and a domestic lockdown is necessary to stop its spread, why have flights continued to come into the country (including
from virus hotspots) unchecked?
Don't get me wrong, there are still some good columnists out there, but sadly you can count them on one hand.
The only thing that can save UK print media from total collapse is if there is a large-scale clear-out of the faux-left/neocon-dominated
commentariat and their replacement by writers who actually address the issues that readers are interested in. Newspapers used to
be published for their readers, now it seems most are published for people who write for other newspapers – and to enable 'Inside
the Tenters' to congratulate each other for their 'brilliant' articles on Twitter.
The smug, mutual back-slapping nonsense, seen at its worst at journalist 'award' ceremonies, has gone on for too long. We need
more old-style chain-smoking journos, not frightened of telling truth to power – and less smoke and mirrors.
Trust in British print media can be restored, but only if we go back to the future.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.
He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 is a journalist,
writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world
affairs @NeilClark66 6 May, 2020 17:39
Get short URL
FBI under Obama acted as Gestapo -- the political police. Obama looks now especially bad and probably should be
prosecuted for the attempt to stage coup d'état against legitimately elected president. His CIA connections need to investigated
and prosecuted too, and first of all Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings. ..."
"... "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that." ..."
"... Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded. ..."
"... Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes. "Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington examiner ..."
"... Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn. If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl ..."
"... All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion! ..."
"... I'm revealing my age by using this expression from the Watergate era, but "what did Obama, Biden and Comey know, and when did they know it?" ..."
"... So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit. ..."
"... Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand. ..."
"... Brennan was encouraging Comey. I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how long they have known each other. ..."
"... I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not want to investigate? ..."
"
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told special counsel Robert Mueller's team that
she first learned the FBI possessed and was investigating recordings of Flynn's late 2016
conversations with a Russian envoy following a Jan. 5, 2017, national security meeting at the
White House. It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President Barack Obama.
Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump
administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the
FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming
Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings.
These revelations appear in declassified FBI interview notes of the Mueller team's
conversation with Yates in August 2017, highlighted by the Justice Department on Thursday as
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Timothy Shea moved to drop its
criminal charges against Flynn.
"One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney
General William Barr
said during a Thursday
interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a
couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of
Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama
administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know,
Director Comey ran around that."
Yates told Mueller's team she first learned of the Flynn recordings following a White House
meeting about the Intelligence Community Assessment attended by Yates, Comey, Vice
President Joe Biden , then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, then-national security adviser Susan Rice, and others. Obama asked
Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded.
Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his
conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes.
"Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking
information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington
examiner
-------------
Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account
of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn.
If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since
Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high
was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl
All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the
closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of
collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the
Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the
media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion!
Devin Nunes was spot on and correct that there was an attempted coup. All the media and
even many Republicans called him a conspiracy theorist.
SST maintaining its glorious tradition was spot on in its analysis with the limited data
available that there was a coup and the traitors were not those in the Trump campaign but the
leadership in law enforcement and intelligence. A big shoutout to you, Larry and David
Habakkuk.
Trump himself was like deer caught in the headlights. Furiously tweeting but not doing
much of anything else while his own nominees at the DOJ and FBI were plotting and acting to
destroy his presidency. Devin Nunes imploring him to declassify and expose all the evidence
from the FISA applications, the 302s, the internal communications among the plotters
including the prolific FBI lovers. He still hasn't.
What happens next? Will the whole coup be exposed in its entirety? Will anyone be held to
account?
If Trump doesn't care enough even when his ass was being fried to disclose all the
evidence with the stroke of his pen and if all he cares is to tweet "witch-hunt" and "Drain
the Swamp", how realistic is it that any of the coup plotters will be tried for treason?
So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit
him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit.
Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover
their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for
the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand.
Yahoo released a leaked call today of Obama criticizing Trump's response over coronavirus.
Here's the big headline Yahoo is running:
Exclusive: Obama says in private call that 'rule of law is at risk' in Michael Flynn
case
The Flynn case was invoked by Obama as a principal reason that his former administration
officials needed to make sure former Vice President Joe Biden wins the November election
against President Trump. "So I am hoping that all of you feel the same sense of urgency
that I do," he said. "Whenever I campaign, I've always said, 'Ah, this is the most
important election.' Especially obviously when I was on the ballot, that always feels like
it's the most important election. This one -- I'm not on the ballot -- but I am pretty darn
invested. We got to make this happen."
Obama misstated the charge to which Flynn had previously pleaded guilty. He was charged
with false statements to the FBI, not perjury.
Misstated seems like a stretch. The call sounds scripted and I suspect the leak was
deliberate.
Brennan was encouraging Comey.
I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time
that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how
long they have known each other.
O'Biden's Dad just wheeled around the corner in a wood paneled station wagon and dressed
down the neighborhood kids who took O'Biden's ball. A humiliating experience for O'Biden who
sits in the passenger seat as a mere spectator.
The open question is: Just who were those contractors?
Surely that is known to some, and is significant to current politically-charged
inquiries.
Just why that information has not become public is a good question.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for that information?
It is unsurprising @realDonaldTrump enjoys wallowing in his fetid self-indulgence, but I
find it surreal that so many other government officials encourage his ignorance,
incompetence, & destructive behavior.
BTW, history will be written by the righteous, not by his lickspittle.
She served as Acting AG, accepting the post when Trump was inaugurated. What did she tell him
about his whole affair? Was the opposition to the EO 13769 just an excuse to have herself
fired so she would not have to either perjure herself or reveal the truth to Trump?
Jack,
"All this was known in DC for the past few years."
You left out that Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House because the Republicans were in the
majority then and the HPSCI under his term as speaker did not subpoena a very large group of
people, didn't ask relevant questions, didn't release information to the public and thus
ensuring the left took over the House after the 2016 elections.
I, too, coincidentally just concluded a close reading of the Conservative Tree House post
that Mr. Harbaugh just recommended. It is, indeed, well worth such a close reading. There
have been various puzzling things along the way these last few years for which this post
provides explanations. Of particular utility, is its inclusion of a timeline of the arc of
the episodes of illegal government surveillance that began (?) with the IRS spying of 2012,
and how - and why - it evolved from that episode into the massive abuses of the FISA process
of which we are becoming increasingly aware as revelations are forthcoming.
CTH's work is superb, but I do want to say that I am also supremely grateful for all of
the good work and analysis from Larry Johnson, and other contributors, as well as for the
trenchant comments of Col. Lang. Multivalent sources of information, analysis, and comment
provide one with the parallax requisite to understanding this web of perfidy. My gratitude
also is owing to all of you Members of the Committee of Correspondence, each of whom brings
personal observations and insights to bear, always much to my benefit.
I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from
issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not
want to investigate?
["One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates," Attorney
General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General
Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the
fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be
treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about
their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that."]
++++++++++++
This is fascinating because: this, what Barr is discussing, on national TV, . . . this
particular dimension, this Yates/Comey playing hide the bacon has nothing at all to do with
actual Brady material in the Lt. Gen. Flynn case.
Barr is referring to the Special Counsel Mueller Office's interview with Yates on Aug. 15,
2017, entered into the system three weeks later. Her interview occurred more than two months
prior to Flynn's coerced guilty plea.
This SCO document was released to the court May 7 as exhibit 4 attached to the DOJ motion
to end the prosecution of Flynn. It was produced in line with request by defense for Brady
material.
What Barr forgets to say is: This SCO interview of Yates shows that Comey and Yates talked
on the phone -- prior to -- the notorious Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn.
"Comey . . . informed her that two agents were on their way to interview Flynn at the
White House," the SCO said, according to the new court filing.
Yates took no action, -- she did nothing to order Comey to abort this soon-to-happen FBI
interview of Flynn, this SCO interview of her shows.
She was Comey's boss, the Acting Attorney General, at the time.
It shows that she was upset precisely because she wanted the FBI to coordinate with the
DOJ -- on getting Flynn screwed -- even suggesting, she told the SCO, that consideration that
Flynn be recorded, instead of memorialized using standard 302 form –
in-writing-only.
Yates wanted Flynn fired, she told the SCO.
Yates apparently was unable on her own to figure out, as the AG, the FBI and DOJ -- none
of them had any predicate, no "materiality," nothing "tethered" to any crime, as there was no
crime. And if she did not know these basic facts, had no awareness of them, then: why was she
the AG in the first place?
And what did Yates glean, right after this Jan. 24 interview of Flynn?
"Yates received a brief readout of the interview the night it happened, and a longer
readout the following day," which begs the question of why the original 302 of this was never
produced by the DOJ, to the defense; and also, why Covington law firm never asked to see this
before allowing Flynn to make his plea.
"Yates did not speak to the interviewing agents herself, but understood from others that
their assessment was that Flynn showed no 'tells' of lying," the SCO report says.
Based on her personal preference, rather than DOJ norms, she went to the White House, and
her expectation was they would fire Flynn. I fail to see how this nonsense by Yates seem to
escape Barr's notice. Or, is something else also going on?
She personally went to the White House, and her smear campaign against Flynn began, went
on and on and on, even after she was fired after being Acting AG for just ten days.
In her brief stint as Acting AG: Yates refused to tell the White House Counsel if Flynn
was being investigated, when the WHC asked her, directly, about this, according to what she
told the SCO. Can't blame this fact on the unctuous Comey.
She did tell the SCO that she wanted the WHC to know Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI
– and that she had concerns about Flynn, and she said those concerns related to the
Logan Act. Yates told SCO her concerns were because of the Logan Act, and that she expressed
this to the White House.
The Washington Examiner reporting that "It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President
Barack Obama" -- about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call --- this is interesting, very
interesting, if true, assuming Yates was telling the SCO the truth. This is what she claims
in her August 2017 interview with SCO.
But this bit of information is hardly Brady material [how is whether Obama or Comey told
her materially germane to the Flynn case, viz. Brady material?].
The question the SCO should have been concerned about is: who actually leaked the
transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call to the media?
Is this a serious crime? Or is this OK?
We still do not know this answer, and AG Barr has not told us. Nor has his boss,
Trump.
It is interesting that Barr chose to highlight that Comey went around Yates' back in Comey
ordering FBI to interview Flynn, but not that Yates knew of the Flynn interview before it
went down, and sat on her arse about it.
In fairness to Comey, they were, as the FB of Investigations, conducting the
investigation, which is their job, however rogue this FBI's I actually was, targeting
Flynn.
The Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, occurring late December of 2016, was reported by the
Washington Post on Jan. 12, 2017, eight days before Trump was sworn in.
And who leaked this, has anyone been prosecuted, will anyone be?
Obama still president, Loretta Lynch still AG, Yates still Deputy AG, Comey FBI director,
McCabe Deputy FBI director, etc.
Starting Jan. 20 and for ten days, Yates was the AG. She appeared bent on destroying
Flynn, and did nothing that I know of to prosecute who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone
call to WAPO. Did someone on high perhaps ask her not to?
Nor was Comey and McCabe investigating this as best I can tell. Yet this was an actual,
clear cut crime we all saw, plain as day. Or maybe this is OK? Was someone on high asking
them not to?
I watched Barr say, during his interview with CBS news, [following the May 7 release of
documents to the court]: "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how
Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney
General Yates," Barr told Catherine Herridge.
And my first thought was: why is Barr doing an apparent CYA for Yates?
What office might she want to be running for in the future; is she a cooperating witness
in the wider Durham probe, why is Yates being portrayed as someone other than what she was: A
leader in the effort to destroy Michael Flynn.
She was the AG, and she failed to hold Comey accountable at the time; this is a fact,
apparently, that reflects poorly on her.
She told the White House -- as best she could -- that Flynn was a piece of dung, and told
the SCO, in their interview of her, that she expected the White House to fire Flynn. This
reflects poorly on her.
And threatened Logan Act prosecution of Flynn to the White house. This reflects poorly on
her.
She smeared Flynn in a CNN interview on May 16, the day before Mueller was appointed. This
reflects poorly on her.
Well, who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, and did Yates act on that?
Folks that "should have known better" -- far and wide, smeared Flynn, justified the
lawlessness against him; one of many examples, titled: "Leaking Flynn's name to the press was
illegal, but utterly justified" published by TheHill.com.
She wasn't the only one, but Yates was smack dab in the middle of enabling and
perpetuating a long-running smear campaign against Flynn, to destroy him by any means
necessary. This reflects poorly on her.
Why is Barr carrying water for her.
As for Obama, he did nothing to stop Comey in 2016 when Comey announced he was exonerating
Clinton. Nor did AG Lynch, even though that is not the function of the FBI -- an act of
insubordination, by the way, for which Rosenstein officially fired him in May 2017, which
set, somehow, in motion the Mueller SC appointment by Rosenstein.
If Comey is such a rogue, and Barr is now claiming Yates tried to do the right thing, in
spite of Comey, then why didn't Yates fire Comey Jan. 24 right on the spot? And end the
fiasco right then and there?
In her May 16, 2017 CNN interview she only has kind words to say about him.
AS for who on high was encouraging Comey's extra legal free-lancing in the Clinton and
Flynn matters is a pertinent question.
Who were the enablers, in other words?
Barr appears to imply Comey did it all on his own, which is not entirely accurate. Perhaps
this also implies that Durham will prosecute Comey? I don't know if anyone will be prosecuted
at all. Time will tell.
It is clear Comey's enablers would, by rank, have been, viz. the Clinton matter: Obama and
Lynch.
In the Flynn matter: Trump and Yates.
Simple logic dictates that: if Main Justice was "not in the loop" then, for Clinton
matter, this means Obama was enabling Comey to exonerate her; and also dictate that, for
Flynn, that Trump was the one "on high" enabling Comey.
If there are others on high, they were not in the chain of command as I understand the
current US Government structure.
-30-
You seem to think Trump was informed of all the relevant information about the FBI's
conduct during his first ten days in office. Because Barr, being appointed AG two years after
these events, has yet to indict anyone in the case, Trump was actually enabling Yates in
destroying Flynn? Neither appear to be logical conclusions to me.
So on a December 29, 2016 The Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia that evolved to
Flynn, at the instruction of the incoming Trump administration, contacting the Russian
ambassador requesting that they not retaliate or heighten the situation.
On January 5th Ms. Yates learned from Obama of the Flynn intervention.
Rather than contact Trump directly Obama went along with the Comey Logan Act thoughts.
The decision to enact sanctions obviously involved State, CIA, DNI and FBI but why not
Justice or did it. But why was the incoming Trump administration not consulted.
There was only one Machiavellian thinker in that group and it wasn't the idiot who got his
panties all twisted up.
This was a coup d'état and it has little to do with the protection of Oabama policies,
but a lot with protection of Clinton clan to which Obama belongs.
FBI investigators were corrupt and acted as a political police
Notable quotes:
"... Heavily redacted FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous " Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor." (No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.) ..."
"... FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia; and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed regularly to determine if he was a spy. ..."
"... None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy issues." ..."
"... Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies. ..."
investigation
of Michael Flynn , the
more it appears he was targeted precisely because, as the national security adviser to the
incoming Trump administration, he signaled that the new administration might undo Obama
administration policies -- which is kind of what the American people voted for in 2016.
Some will say that Gen. Flynn was investigated for legitimate criminal or national security
reasons. Yet, the FBI's ultimate interview of Flynn addressed none of the grounds that the FBI
used to open the original case against him. For those of us who have run FBI investigations,
that is more than odd.
Heavily redacted
FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign
members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous "
Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor."
(No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.)
For the record, Flynn clearly exercised poor judgment as a result of being interviewed by
the FBI. The larger question is whether the team under then-Director James Comey had a legitimate basis to conduct the
interview at all.
FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated
reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump
campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia;
and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed
regularly to determine if he was a spy.
None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it
is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the
Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an
adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy
issues."
Let me be clear: That is not a legitimate justification to investigate an American
citizen.
There is a theme that runs through the entire Crossfire Hurricane disaster, which has been
publicly articulated by Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe : They saw themselves as stalwarts
in the breach defending America from a presidential candidate who they believed was an
agent
of Russia .
... ... ...
Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI
special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a
founder and principal of NewStreet Global
Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic
mission technologies.
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning, and several attempts have
followed...
__________________________________________________
That is not at all obvious.
Russiagate was obviously designed to look like a coup attempt, but you have to be extremely
gullible to believe any of it is real.
The recent Flynn bruhaha is a perfect example of the phoniness surrounding Russiagate.
The FBI investigators that interviewed Flynn believed he had not been deceptive and any
fool who was paying attention at the time believed he was not guilty because 2 weeks before
that FBI interview the news media had reported that the phone call with Kislyak had been
recorded by the FBI and that there was nothing improper or illegal that would motivate Flynn
to lie about his talk with Kislyak. The story that Flynn lied to the FBI is unbelievable on
its face.
Don't blame the FBI for creating this fake story. Trump is the one and only one that
created the fake Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story, Before Trump created the phony story that Flynn
had lied to the FBI nobody else had at that time believed Flynn lied to the FBI.
But once Trump had created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI then all the gullible
morons started to believe the phony story. And even Flynn himself goes along with Trump's
phony story because he is a good soldier that follows command.
Before Comey's testimony to Congress that suggested that Trump was twisting Comey's arm to
let Flynn go for lying to the FBI no one had ever said that Flynn lied to the FBI. That story
was created by Trump and reported by Comey.
And then Mueller and Flynn and Comey all helped Trump foist that phony story that Flynn lied
to the FBI onto the public.
The implication of Comey's testimony to Congress was that in order to get Flynn off a
charge of Lying to the FBI Trump first tried to cajole Comey to go easy on Flynn and when
that did not work Trump fired Comey.
The problem with that whole BS story is that the crux of it (that Flynn lied to the FBI)
never happened. It was entirely invented by Trump to make it look like Trump was engaged in
mortal combat with the deep state. But it was all staged and fake (i.e. Kayfabe)
_______________________________________________
Well duh....
Russiagate was designed to fall apart.
It was obvious all along that all the stories that came out in the Mueller Report were
badly written sit-com material - the script for a comic soap opera. And they were all
scripted to fall apart when examined closely.
What I could never figure out was what this guy Mueller was going to say when he was
dragged in front of Congress and required to answer tough questions about all the garbage he
had produced. I thought for sure that for Mueller the jig would be up there was no way the
farce would not be revealed for all to see.
And then it happened. Mueller testified and it turned out Mueller could not remember any
of it.
Senator: Did you say XYZ?
Mueller: Is that in the report??
Senator: yes it is.
Mueller: Then it is true.
Making Mueller Senile and unable to remember anything was brilliant - pure genius. The
rest of the Russiagate script was mediocre at best.
It was a transparently false narrative designed, by the most incompetent election
campaign team in history ...
Occam's razor says Hillary threw the election. No seasoned politician would make the
mistakes that she made - especially when they yearn to make history (as the first
woman president) and the entire establishment (left and right) is counting on them to
win.
Believing what is evidently incredible has long been a test of loyalty
...
And you prove your loyalty with the belief that Hillary lost because of an
"incompetent election campaign".
All-in-all Obama was a CIA sponsored fraud: In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Notable quotes:
"... Now why is Obama against General Flynn? Hmmm. Good question. Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security? LINK ..."
"... Gen. Flynn: Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support Sunni extremists (a Jihadi proxy army) against Assad . This directly contradicts the phony narrative of Obama as peace-loving black man (as certified by his Nobel Prize!). ..."
"... In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises." ..."
Whether or not General Flynn is loathed or liked, there is Supreme Court decisions setting
precedence for dropping a case when found to be wrapped in prosecutorial misdeeds:
As for the first 'black' president out from the shadows;
Thanks for that additional link. And that's why Obama could not standby with Flynn in the
NSA role. Recall Hillary's on Trump- "if he is elected we'll hang" (paraphrased)
In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Fast Forward to 2011 he signs NDAA. "How Obama disappointed the world." Der Spiegel had
such an article 9 Aug.2011. But he was re-(S)-elected.
If I had told you a year ago that Iran would have its top General assassinated and then its
country decimated by a viral infection, that China would be a world pariah with calls for
trillion in reparations, that Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela would have a bounty on his head for
lol being involved in the cocaine trade, and that Kim Jong Un would be dead who do you think
would be the architect of this future?
Chinese elites or American ones?
American neocons are literally getting everything they want.
You can look at all of the damage to the American economy relative to China, but who is
really being hurt in America? Regular Americans are being hurt. But the elites are getting
bailed out and will buy US assets for pennies on the dollar.
"... While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its reporting from Russian journalists . ..."
"... On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website Proekt , known as The Project in English. ..."
"... This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months later, in November , titled " How Russia Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting . ..."
"... Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the Putin regime's 'predations.'" ..."
"... Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year." ..."
"... Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism. Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries targeted by Washington for regime change. ..."
"... The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting. ..."
The New York Times has been accused for a second time of stealing major scoops from Russian
journalists . One of those stories won the Times a Pulitzer Prize this May.
The journalists who have accused the Times of taking their work without credit also happen
to be the same liberal media crusaders against Vladimir Putin that Western correspondents at
the Times and other mainstream outlets have cast as persecuted heroes. The Pulitzer Prize Board is comprised of a who's who
of media aristocrats and Ivy League bigwigs. Given the elite backgrounds of the judges, it is
hardly a surprise that they rewarded reporting reinforcing the narrative of the new US Cold War
against official enemies like Russia and China .
Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times correspondent who has since become a critic of US
foreign policy, noted that the three finalists in the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting
"were one story about how evil Russia is and two about how evil China is. These choices
encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's
foreign-policy narrative."
The finalists nominated in this category were Reuters and the New York Times for two
separate sets of stories.
The US newspaper of record ended up winning the 2020 award in international
reporting , for what the Pulitzer jury described as "a set of enthralling stories, reported
at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime."
The 3 finalists in the #PulitzerPrize2020
"international reporting" category were one story about how evil #Russia is and two
about how evil #China is. These
choices encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's
foreign-policy narative.
The Times was nominated again as a finalist for what the jury called its "gripping accounts
that disclosed China's top-secret efforts to repress millions of Muslims through a system of
labor camps, brutality and surveillance."
The staff of Reuters was selected as the third finalist for its reporting in support of
anti-China
protesters in Hong
Kong . (The photography staff of Reuters ended up winning the Pulitzer Prize in breaking
news photography for the same coverage.)
Among the five members of the Pulitzer jury
who selected these finalists was Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the neoliberal
magazine The Atlantic and a former volunteer in the Israeli army who worked as a guard at a prison camp
where Palestinians who rose up in the First Intifada were interned.
Joining Goldberg on the jury was Susan Chira, a former New York Times editor.
While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the
predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to
entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its
reporting from Russian journalists .
On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook
post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without
credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website
Proekt , known as The Project in
English.
"I have no illusions about the real role of Russian journalism in the world, but I have to
note: the two The New York Times's investigations, for which this honored newspaper won the
Pulitzer prize yesterday, repeat the findings of The Project's articles published a few months
before," Badanin wrote on Facebook.
"I would also like to note that the winners did not put a single link to the English version
of our article, even when, for example, 8 months after The Project, they told about the
activities of Eugene Prigozhin's emissaries in Madagascar," he added.
Badanin linked to an article he published, both in Russian and English, back in March 2019
titled " Master and Chef : How
Evgeny Prigozhin led the Russian offensive in Africa." The story details how the businessman
Evgenу Prigozhin, who is sanctioned by the US government, has been promoting business
opportunities in Africa. The piece focuses specifically on Madagascar, where Russia also has a
military agreement.
This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months
later, in November , titled " How Russia
Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in
Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting .
Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing
attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the
Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should
have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the
Putin regime's 'predations.'"
Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from
November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about
Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year."
While Badanin did not outright accuse the Times of plagiarism, he was frustrated that
"nowhere in the story did they acknowledge that we'd already reported on this topic," and said
it was either a "professional issue" or an "ethical problem."
A New York Times spokesperson denied that Proekt's reporting was used in any way. And the
Times reporter who authored this report from Madagascar, Michael Schwirtz , responded
dismissively to the accusations in a Twitter thread full of sarcastic quips.
Another
anti-Putin Russian activist accuses the New York Times of lifting his reporting
Michael Schwirtz authored another New York Times article in December that was cited by the
Pulitzer jury for the 2020 prize. This piece, "How a Poisoning
in Bulgaria Exposed Russian Assassins in Europe," is also suspiciously similar to reporting
published before by yet another anti-Putin website, called The Insider .
The Insider is edited by the Western-backed, diehard anti-Putin activist Roman Dobrokhotov.
In response to Schwirtz's Twitter thread, Dobrohotov angrily asked why The Insider's reports
were not credited as well. Schwirtz denied having used information from the previous
stories.
Schwirtz's Twitter thread tagged four Russian accounts: Proekt, The Insider, Dobrokhotov,
and Yasha Levine, the last of whom is an occasional contributor to The Grayzone and the author of " Surveillance Valley ."
Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents --
doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and
suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway? https://t.co/V1YtZ7K6OB
"Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents --
doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and
suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway?"
"The reverence with which liberal Russian journalists have treated the New York Times has
always been baffling to me," Levine continued. "But that's what you get when you're a colonial
subject like Russia. You fetishize the master. That reverence is starting to wear off, but it's
still there."
New York Times was also accused of stealing Russian journalists' reporting
back in 2017
This is not even the first time that the US newspaper of record has been accused of stealing
reporting from Russian journalists.
Back in 2017, the New York Times won the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting for its
reports on "Vladimir Putin's efforts to project Russia's power abroad."
At the time, journalists from the anti-Putin website Meduza accused the Times of ripping off
their reporting. The website Global Voices highlighted the controversy, in an article titled
"Russian Journalists Say One of
NYT's Pulitzer-Winning Stories Was Stolen ."
Meduza reported Daniil Turovsky accused New York Times Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer
of lifting his reporting. Kramer actually took the time to respond in a Facebook comment,
acknowledging that his report was based on the Russian journalist's.
"Daniil, I spoke with you while preparing this article and explained that I intended to
follow in the footsteps of your fine work, that I would credit Meduza, as I did, and thanked
you for your help," Kramer said.
This did not satisfy Meduza, which also reminded readers in its latest 2020 article that the
Times had ripped off its 2017 reporting.
The NYT times has been honored with a Pulitzer Prize for "exposing the predations of
Vladimir Putin's regime" in 2019, but several top investigative journalists in Russia say the
U.S. newspaper ignored their groundbreaking work in this area -- again. https://t.co/R4WZdqHDp4
The Grayzone has also experienced this kind of shameless journalistic theft. In March 2019,
the New York Times released a report acknowledging that the so-called "humanitarian aid" convoy
that the US government tried to ram across the Venezuelan border in a February coup attempt had
been set on
fire not by government forces, but rather Washington-backed right-wing opposition
hooligans.
At the time of this February 23 putsch attempt, the Times had initially joined US
politicians like Senator Marco Rubio and the majority of the corporate media in blaming
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. But The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, who was
reporting in Venezuela, published a report
showing that all of the available evidence pointed to the opposition being responsible.
When the Times finally admitted this fact weeks later, it made no mention whatsoever of
Blumenthal's reporting.
Glenn Greenwald was the only high-profile journalist to credit Blumenthal and The
Grayzone.
New York Times had ironically heroized these Russian journalists before
stealing their reporting
Further compounding this staggering hypocrisy is the fact that the New York Times has in
fact published numerous articles lionizing these anti-Putin Russian journalists, while
simultaneously ripping off their work.
Proekt founder and editor Roman Badanin is not some kind of crypto pro-Kremlin activist
– far from it. He has spent years working within mainstream outlets, and was previously
the editor-in-chief of the decidedly anti-Putin Russian edition of Forbes magazine.
Badanin does friendly interviews with US-based neoconservative think tanks like the
Free Russia Foundation , a
right-wing anti-Putin lobbying group that appointed regime-changer Michael Weiss as its
director for special investigations.
In an
interview conducted by Valeria Jegisman , a neoconservative
anti-Russian activist who worked as a spokesperson for the government of Estonia and now works
at the US government's propaganda arm Voice of America, group accused the Kremlin of spreading
false information, claiming "Russia will continue its disinformation tactics."
Badanin also called for "the West" to "support independent media projects with non-profit
funding," stating clearly: "I think that what the West can do is to continue to support
independent media in the most transparent and clear way, and to stop being afraid of the
million tricks that the Russian authorities come up with to force the West to abandon these
investments."
The Russian journalist's pro-Western perspective has been rewarded. Badanin was honored by
the European Press Prize , a
program backed by Western governments and the top corporate media outlets in Europe,
particularly The Guardian and Reuters.
Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism.
Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and
its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries
targeted by Washington for regime change.
Badanin's extensive links to Western regime-change institutions should not come as a
surprise to the New York Times; it has in fact honored him in numerous articles.
In 2017, the Times published an entire article framed around Badanin. Reporter Jim Rutenberg
explained, "I wanted to better understand President Trump's America So I
went to Russia ."
In Moscow, Rutenberg met with Badanin at the headquarters of the anti-Putin station TV Rain,
which he described as a "warehouse complex here, populated by young people with beards,
tattoos, piercings and colored hair. (Brooklyn hipster imperialism knows no bounds.)"
While praising Badanin and TV Rain, the Times also noted that the channel published a poll
suggesting that the Soviet Union "should have abandoned Leningrad to the Nazis to save
lives."
The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two
years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting.
The New York Times also reported on Roman Badanin in
2016 and
2011 . It is abundantly clear the newspaper knew who he was.
The Gray Lady's willingness to snatch Badanin's reporting shows how little respect
newspapers like the New York Times actually have for the anti-Putin journalists they claim to
lionize . For the jet-setting correspondents of Western corporate media outlets, liberal
Russian reporters are just tools to advance their own ambitions.
Appealing to his base of support, Trump has notoriously pardoned Chief Petty Officer Edward
Gallagher, a Navy seal who was clearly guilty of murder in Afghanistan, and even met with him
afterwards in the White House. Regarding Gallagher, Senate Armed Services Committee Democrat
Jack Reed of Rhode Island said in a November that "The White House's handling of this matter
erodes the basic command structure of the military and the basic function of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice."
Trump is now meddling in the treatment of Navy Captain Brett Crozier, who was relieved of
his command after he went public with complains about the spread of coronavirus on his ship. In
early April
the president said "I may just get involved." In the military services such interference
even has a name, "undue command influence." Clearly, the White House is seeking to squeeze
every bit of political advantage it can from the Crozier story.
Congressman Smith has also described the situation in a colorful fashion as "The president
has made it clear as far as he is concerned the single most important attribute that anybody in
the federal government can have is a willingness to kiss the president's ass as often as
possible" which "undermines your ability to be competent, to make decisions based on what is
the right thing to do as opposed to what is going to feed the president's limitless ego."
To be sure, Donald Trump is not about to change and if he is re-elected one can only expect
four more years of the same, but public confidence in government can only be maintained if
there is at least some belief that decision making is a rational process. Trump has clearly
turned that axiom on its head in his tendency to blame other parts of the government for what
are manifestly his own failings. His characterization of senior officials, many of whom he
himself appointed, as "losers" casts the entire government in a bad light. Whether the strategy
of divide and conquer within one's own administration will work out for Trump will certainly be
decided in November.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
That would broadly depend on how Russia is calculating victory. The Assad government has
survived the war, which is certainly something that many didn't expect earlier in the conflict.
What Syria will look like in the long run ultimately depends on the new constitution.
Which is where the US and Russia split is coming from. The US has insisted any post-war
scenario would mandate full regime change, forbidding Assad and others from ever running for
office. Russia, however, has said such details should be left up to Syria's voters.
Jeffrey's comments suggest that the US is still holding out for better terms. This may also
put the continued US involvement in Syria, which President Trump insists is just about oil, in
a different context, one keeping the US in the conversation at the UN for when the war finally
ends.
"... Avaaz supported the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, which led to the military intervention in the country in 2011. It was criticized for its pro-intervention stance in the media and blogs. [17] ..."
"... Avaaz supported the civil uprising preceding the Syrian Civil War . This included sending $1.5 million of Internet communications equipment to protesters, and training activists. Later it used smuggling routes to send over $2 million of medical equipment into rebel-held areas of Syria. It also smuggled 34 international journalists into Syria. [10] [18] ..."
"... Yes, pilgrims, my professional deformation leads me to find pattern where there may be none. ..."
"... It would be logical for there to exist connective tissue that relates the Sorosistas, The Clintonistas, the media freaks, Tom Perez' DNC, ..."
"... And then, there is Neil Ferguson the British epidemiologist who sold #10 on the idea of a national lock-down that looks to destroy the UK economy and political system. Antonia Staats his married mistress is a major figure in AVAAZ. He broke curfew twice to get a little bit of that. Coincidence? ..."
"... Even a small amount of google searching suggests that Avaaz is simply another Zionist-funded pro-Israel controlled opposition cutout type of organization. Funded by Zionist George Soros. Main honcho Ricken Patel is associated with Zionist lobby group J Street. ..."
"... Per the commentary above, supported the regime change operation in Syria (a longstanding Zionist goal, refer to the Clean Break plan.) ..."
"... What pillow talk went on between AVAAZ agent Antonia Staats and her Imperial College of London paramour Neil Ferguson right before he briefed Trump/Pence on their corona "we are all gonna die" projections. ..."
"Avaaz claims to unite practical idealists from around the
world. [8] Director Ricken Patel
said in 2011, "We have no ideology per se. Our mission is to close the gap between the world we
have and the world most people everywhere want. Idealists of the world unite!" [12] In practice ,
Avaaz often supports causes considered progressive, such as calling for global action on climate change ,
challenging Monsanto, and building greater global support for refugees. [13][14][15]
Avaaz supported the civil uprising
preceding the Syrian Civil War . This included sending $1.5 million of Internet
communications equipment to protesters, and training activists. Later it used smuggling routes
to send over $2 million of medical equipment into rebel-held areas of Syria. It also smuggled
34 international journalists into Syria. [10][18] Avaaz
coordinated the evacuation of wounded British photographer Paul Conroy from Homs . Thirteen Syrian activists died
during the evacuation operation. [10][19]
Some senior members of other non-governmental organizations working in the Middle East have
criticized Avaaz for taking sides in a civil war. [16] As of November
2016, Avaaz continues campaigning for no-fly zones over Syria in general and specifically
Aleppo . (Gen. Dunford,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, has said that establishing a no-fly
zone means going to war against Syria and Russia. [20] ) It has received
criticism from parts of the political blogosphere and has a single digit percentage
of its users opposing the petitions, with a number of users ultimately leaving the network. The
Avaaz team responded to this criticism by issuing two statements defending their decision to
campaign. wiki
----------------
Yes, pilgrims, my professional deformation leads me to find pattern where there may be
none. BUT, OTOH, there may BE a pattern. It would be logical for there to exist
connective tissue that relates the Sorosistas, The Clintonistas, the media freaks, Tom Perez'
DNC, etc., etc., ad nauseam. ...
And then, there is Neil Ferguson the British epidemiologist who sold #10 on the idea of
a national lock-down that looks to destroy the UK economy and political system. Antonia Staats
his married mistress is a major figure in AVAAZ. He broke curfew twice to get a little bit of
that. Coincidence? pl
Even a small amount of google searching suggests that Avaaz is simply another
Zionist-funded pro-Israel controlled opposition cutout type of organization. Funded by
Zionist George Soros. Main honcho Ricken Patel is associated with Zionist lobby group J
Street.
Per the commentary above, supported the regime change operation in Syria (a
longstanding Zionist goal, refer to the Clean Break plan.)
Bottom line: not a leftist organization. Faux leftist, controlled opposition, Zionist.
Neocons are probably delighted with Avaaz.
It was a ground hog day nightmare when I read the AVAAZ website and found all the
"progressive" chestnuts, alive, well and kicking into high gear. This AVAAZ agenda fuels the
politics in my state, California, so I know each element well plus how each of of them has
failed us so badly. They all teeter on OPM, which the state wide corona shut down has
decimated.
What pillow talk went on between AVAAZ agent Antonia Staats and her Imperial College
of London paramour Neil Ferguson right before he briefed Trump/Pence on their corona "we are
all gonna die" projections.
It all happened so fast - from runs on toilet paper in Australia reported on March 2 to
global shutdown on March 16 due to this Imperial College model in just two weeks. Who and
what communication network was behind this radical global shift that generated virtually no
push back? The message quickly became one case of corona and we are all gonna die. How did
that find such a willing audience?
I keep hearing that same echo in my nightmares, never let a crisis go to waste - now with
this very distinct German accent on the face of a red-lipped blonde. Too weird to see this
AVAAZ "global" network is so darn interested in over-turning a US Supreme Court Citizens
United ruling - the old Hilary Clinton rallying cry. What is with that - they care in
Malaysia?
Thank you for sunshining this very curious operation and its all too familiar cast of
known characters lurking in its history, shadows, funding and leadership circle. Injecting
them with Lysol is the better plan.
It is one thing to sic Barr-Durham on US government operations, but who can even explore
let alone touch the world of global NGO's.
It does explain where a lot of the Bernie Sanders fervor comes from and how it sustains
this energy despite defeat in the US election polls. The AVAAZ agenda winning the hearts and
minds of many young people around the world. It will be their world to inherit, if they go
down this path; not ours. God speed to all of them. Namaste. Dahl and naan for everyone.
A little internet search also questions if AVAAZ is an intelligence community funded
operation, linking key Obama administration players.
Good indoor fun during our national lockdowns - track AVAAZ in all its permutations and
recurrent players. Samantha Powers and her hundreds of FISA unmasking requests comes to mind
as well as her role in the AVAAZ games played in Syria.
Some AVAAZ fodder from a random internet search: Tinfoil hat fun times - keep digging.
......."Curiously, however, the absence of routine information on the Avaaz website --
board of directors, contact information, etc. -- raises the possibility that the organization
is one of innumerable such groups created around the world by intelligence organizations with
secret funding to advance hidden agendas.
This was the gist of a 2012 column by Global Research columnist Susanne Posel, headlined
Avaaz: The Lobbyist that Masquerades as Online Activism. She alleged that Avaaz
purports to be a global avenue for dissent, but channels reform energies on the most
sensitive issues into such pro-U.S. positions as support for Israel and the Free Syrian
Army......."
"Who and what communication network ..." ... " but who can even explore let alone touch
the world of global NGO's."
Have you noticed how fast Project Veritas gets shut down, how Twitter, FB, etc silence any
effective opposition to the message of the left?
"It is one thing to sic Barr-Durham on US government operations,..."
Perhaps now that FlynnFlu is evaporating in the disinfecting sunlight some sunshine should be
applied to the H1B visa holders at the aformentioned social media companies and add in
Google, Bing, Oath etc. and see how many Communist operatives are there, in addition to
"essential employee" non-citizen lefty's pushing the anti-American propaganda. A dinner
invitation to Jeff Bezos and his paramore might provide some interesting conversation on just
who at Amazon might be involved in the same type of anti-western operations; compare their
corporate response to distribution operations in the US vs. France as an example. https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1143127502895898625
Furthermore, observe the Google leadership team discussion of the 2016 elections.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/
Minute 12:30 CFO Ruth Porat
Minute 27:00 Q&A Sergey Brin response on matching donations to employee causes.
Make sure to watch minute 52 on H1B visa holders. With 30,000,000 unemployed Americans just
how many of those visas does Google need now? (I don't recall any organization telling China
they need open borders immigration since thier hispanic/african/caucasian population
percentages are effectively zero, so we might wonder who has been behind that message for the
past few decades and why it is only directed at Western democracies).
And the inevitable campaign against "low information" voters and "fake news". I wonder what
their take on Russian election interference is now? (Russia cyber trolling! minute
54:44.)
56:20 The inevitable arc of "progress". Make sure you join the fight for Hilary's values.
That's the actual corporate leadership message. See the final round of applause at 1:01. Our
new overlords know best. Too bad they don't own a mirror, or an ability to reflect on why
someone can see the same data and come to a different conclusion of than these experts.
That's just a scratch on the surface. How much money flowed through the Clinton Global
Initiative, which NGOs got some cleansed proceeds, which elections were influenced,
professors and research sponsored, local communities "organzied". There's plenty to look at
and "Isreal, Soros, Zionists" are the least of it.
avaaz always struck me like some intel agency psyc op... maybe israel like the poster outrage
beyond implies.. either way - one could read stay away based on everything about them..
A friend of a friend is a research scientist at Imperial in biology, he is as lefty as they
get and I think would be happy to falsify his research to serve his political goals. Besides
Imperial is a hard science uni, UCL is top in the University of London for medicine.
Soros and his organisations should be made persona non grata, as the Russians and
Hungarians have. Extraordinary his influence in the EU, he has picked up where the Soviet
Union left off, funding every organisation that demoralises society, from gay rights to
immigration promotion to ethnic lobbies, even in Eastern European countries where there are
no minorities.
The one woman standing up to a pompous judge who has called her "selfish" for wanting to earn
the money it takes to feed her child is the heroine of this week's news.
Hers is the story of our Democratic Republic, born in the Age of Reason. Voltaire's
Candide comes to the best conclusion for the way our elected representatives should make
decisions: what works best to help INDIVIDUALS tend their own gardens is the form of
government we should pursue.
It's true that young people have hearts and good intentions, but older people in most
cases have brains and understand human nature better.
This older person--even when she was young--always distrusted a popular uprising or
growing movement.
And if Obama and Hillary are for it, I know I am against it. (That's a more specific life
lesson I've learned.)
So Flynn was framed but the plot eventually failed. will Strzok get a jail sencetnce for his role in this FBI operation?
Charlie Savage being a NYT correspondent belongs to Clinton gang and defend their point of view. But h revels some
interesting tidbits about the nature of framing and possible consequences for the key members of Clinton gang.
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department's
decision to drop the criminal case against Michael T. Flynn
, President Trump's former national security
adviser, even though he had twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators, was extraordinary and had no
obvious precedent, a range of criminal law specialists said on Thursday.
"I've been practicing for more time than I care to admit and I've never seen
anything like this," said Julie O'Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at
Georgetown University.
The move is the latest in a series that the department, under Attorney
General William P. Barr, has taken to undermine and dismantle the work of the investigators and prosecutors
who scrutinized Russia's 2016 election interference operation and its links to people associated with the
Trump campaign.
The case against Mr. Flynn for lying to the F.B.I. about his conversations
with the Russian ambassador was brought by the office of the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
It had become a political cause for Mr. Trump and his supporters, and the president had signaled that he was
considering a pardon once Mr. Flynn was sentenced. But Mr. Barr instead abruptly short-circuited the case.
On Thursday, Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney in the District of
Columbia, told the judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, that prosecutors were withdrawing the case.
They were doing so, he said, because the department could not prove to a jury that Mr. Flynn's admitted lies
to the F.B.I. about his conversations with the ambassador were "material" ones.
The move essentially erases Mr. Flynn's guilty pleas. Because he was never
sentenced and the government is unwilling to pursue the matter further, the prosecution is virtually certain
to end, although the judge must still decide whether to grant the department's request to dismiss it "with
prejudice," meaning it could not be refiled in the future.
A range of former prosecutors struggled to point to any previous instance in
which the Justice Department had abandoned its own case after obtaining a guilty plea. They portrayed the
justification Mr. Shea pointed to -- that it would be difficult to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
that the lies were material -- as dubious.
"A pardon would have been a lot more honest," said Samuel Buell, a former
federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at Duke University.
The law regarding what counts as "material" is extremely forgiving to the
government, Mr. Buell added. The idea is that law enforcement is permitted to pursue possible theories of
criminality and to interview people without having firmly established that there was a crime first.
James G. McGovern
, a defense lawyer at Hogan Lovells and a former federal prosecutor, said juries rarely
bought a defendant's argument that a lie did not involve a material fact.
"If you are arguing 'materiality,' you usually lose, because there is a tacit
admission that what you said was untrue, so you lose the jury," he said.
No career prosecutors signed the motion. Mr. Shea is a former close aide to
Mr. Barr. In January, Mr. Barr
installed him as the top prosecutor
in the district that encompasses the nation's capital after
maneuvering out the Senate-confirmed former top prosecutor in that office, Jessie K. Liu.
Soon after, in an extraordinary move, four prosecutors in the office abruptly
quit the case against Mr. Trump's longtime friend
Roger
J. Stone Jr.
They did so after senior Justice Department officials intervened to recommend a more
lenient prison term than standard sentencing guidelines called for in the crimes Mr. Stone was convicted of
committing -- including witness intimidation and perjury -- to conceal Trump campaign interactions with
WikiLeaks.
It
soon emerged
that Mr. Barr had also appointed an outside prosecutor, Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in
St. Louis, to review the Flynn case files. The department then began turning over F.B.I. documents showing
internal deliberations about questioning Mr. Flynn, like what warnings to give -- even though such files are
usually not provided to the defense.
Mr. Flynn's defense team has mined such files for ammunition to portray the
F.B.I. as running amok in its decision to question Mr. Flynn in the first place. The questioning focused on
his conversations during the transition after the 2016 election with the Russian ambassador about the Obama
administration's imposition of sanctions on Russia for its interference in the American election.
The F.B.I. had already concluded that there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn, a
former Trump campaign adviser, had personally conspired with Russia about the election, and it had decided
to close out the counterintelligence investigation into him. Then questions arose about whether and why Mr.
Flynn had lied to administration colleagues like Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the
ambassador.
Because the counterintelligence investigation was still open, the bureau used
it as a basis to question Mr. Flynn about the conversations and decided not to warn him at its onset that it
would be a crime to lie.
Notes from Bill Priestap
, then the head of the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division, show that he wrote
at one point about the planned interview: "What's our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can
prosecute him or get him fired?"
Mr. Barr
has let it be known
that he does not think the F.B.I. ever had an adequate legal basis to open its
Russia investigation in the first place, contrary to the judgment of the Justice Department's inspector
general.
In
an interview on CBS News
on Thursday, Mr. Barr defended the dropping of the charges against Mr. Flynn on
the grounds that the F.B.I. "did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at
that stage."
Anne Milgram
, a former federal prosecutor and former New Jersey attorney general who teaches criminal
law at New York University, defended the F.B.I.'s decision to question Mr. Flynn in January 2017. She said
that much was still a mystery about the Russian election interference operation at the time and that Mr.
Flynn's lying to the vice president about his postelection interactions with a high-ranking Russian raised
new questions.
But, she argued, the more important frame for assessing the dropping of the
case was to recognize how it fit into the larger pattern of the Barr-era department "undercutting the law
enforcement officials and prosecutors who investigated the 2016 election and its aftermath," which she
likened to "eating the Justice Department from the inside out."
"... The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations, we are left with Russiagate without Russia. ..."
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. ..."
"... Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office. ..."
"... Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. ..."
"... Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. ..."
Cohen offers the following general observations, which form the basis of the discussion:
The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC
e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016
presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As
no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations,
we are left with Russiagate without Russia. (An apt formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer
James Carden.) Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national-security
adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and
his partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with improper collusion with Russia,
except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn. Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion,
have spread to "contacts with Russia"-political, financial, social, etc.-on the part of a growing number of people, often going back
many years before anyone imagined Trump as a presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal
or potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections.
It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to US policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must have many and various contacts with Russia
if they are to understand anything about the dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. Cohen himself, to take an individual example, was
an adviser to two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered his wide-ranging and longstanding "contacts" with Russia
to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president he advised. To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal
is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave US policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible,
as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post, in an editorial. This is one reason
Cohen, in a previous Batchelor broadcast and commentary, argued that Russiagate and its promoters have become the gravest threat
to American national security.
Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump
political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus
"Dossier" and the still murky role of top US intel officials in the creation of that document.) That said, Cohen continues, the mainstream
American media have been largely responsible for inflating, perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russiagate as the real political
crisis it has become, arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history. The media have
done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting
to tacit forms of censorship by systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions. (For inventories of recent examples,
see Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortium News. Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news"
should visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist Robert Parry.) Still worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, where
expressed disdain for "evidence" and "proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism. As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories,
whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russiagate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples
of Russiagate without Russia.
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is
highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak,
on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions
imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States,
and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to
make even more difficult Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is commonly thought, but Russiagate-that
is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation.
(Or which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a personal rebuff, was eager to
believe.) But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador-as well as other Trump representatives' efforts to open "back-channel"
communications with Moscow–were anything but a crime. As Cohen pointed out in another previous commentary, there were so many precedents
of such overtures on behalf of presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow not to
make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the relationship. When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of
President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of
the incoming administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President Pence and finding himself
trapped-or possibly entrapped-between loyalty to his president and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded
with a representative of the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russiagate prior to the election and which
had escalated after Trump's surprise victory. In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately
to Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to US national security, not a crime. And, assuming that Flynn was
acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way, it was with Israel,
not Russia, having been asked by that government to dissuade countries from voting for an impending anti-Israel UN resolution.
Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary
of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department.
Tillerson was an admirable appointee by Trump-widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and practical-minded
man. Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely profitable and strategically important
energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given
way to charges that he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department, as indeed he should
do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's
undermining of this purportedly glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries, and
editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall, Cohen asks, a major diplomatic triumph by the State Department or a secretary
of state in recent years? The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear-weapons
potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to
the sides involved. Forgotten, meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested-in the spirit
of DOD-Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging of a president by his own State
Department. In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be ousted. Meanwhile, however,
he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russiagate compels him to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while,
at the same time, calling for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if left unencumbered,
he might achieve.) Evidently, he has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov,
the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments
involved in the current crisis.
Tillerson's fate, Cohen concludes, will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting America: cooperation
or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that
it will become hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always involved. But in these unprecedented
times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President
Trump himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russiagate continue to gravely endanger American national
security?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book, War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available in
paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in their seventh year,
are available at www.thenation.com.
Former Trump attorney John Dowd says it's "staggering" that former
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "so-called Dream Team would put on such a fraud," after the
Wednesday release of the investigation's "scope memo" revealed that Mueller was tasked with
investigating accusations from Clinton-funded operative Christopher Steele which the DOJ
already knew were debunked . "In the last few days, I have been going back through my files
and we were badly misled by Mueller and his senior people , particularly in the meetings that
we had," Dowd told Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday.
The scope memo also revealed that Mueller's authority went significantly beyond what was
previously known - including "allegations that Carter Page committed a crime or crimes by
colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to
interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United
States law," yet as John Solomon of
Just The News noted on Wednesday - the FBI had already:
fired Steele as an informant for leaking;
interviewed Steele's sub-source, who disputed information attributed to him;
ascertained that allegations Steele had given the FBI specifically about Page were
inaccurate and likely came from Russian intelligence sources as disinformation;
been informed repeatedly by the CIA that Page was not a Russian stooge but, rather, a
cooperating intelligence asset for the United States government.
" There's no question it's a fraud I think the whole report is just nonsense and it's
staggering that the so-called 'Dream Team' would put on such a fraud ," Dowd said, according to
Fox News .
"Durham has really got a load on his hands tracking all this down," Dowd said.
Durham was appointed last year by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the events
leading up to Trump's inauguration. However, Durham has since expanded his investigation to
cover a post-election timeline spanning the spring of 2017, when Mueller was appointed as
special counsel. - Fox News
"Nancy's Liar"
Dowd also circled back to a claim by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff that
there was "direct evidence" that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016
election, despite the fact that transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews proving
otherwise .
"Schiff doesn't release these interviews because they're going to make him a liar," said
Dowd, adding "They're going to expose him and he'll be run out of town."
"He lied for months in the impeachment inquiry. He's essentially Nancy [Pelosi]'s liar and
he's now going to be exposed."
"... Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more. The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is. ..."
"... "McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere." ..."
"... The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern. ..."
"... And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country. ..."
"... Note how unprepared the country was to COVID-19 epidemic. Zero strategic thinking as if the next epidemic was not in the cards at least since swine fly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States ). ..."
"... Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning. https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425 ..."
"... Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext, conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch. ..."
Neocon Anne Applebaum has never seen a bed she did not expect to find an evil
Russian lurking beneath. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold
War, she cannot let go of that hysterical feeling that, "The Russians Are Coming, The
Russians Are Coming!" In screeching screed after screeching screech, Applebaum is, like
most neocons, a one trick pony: the US government needs to spend more money to counter
the threat of the month. Usually it's Russia or Putin. But it can also be China, Iran,
Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc.
Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the
Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently
made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more.
The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she
herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in
defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every
intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is.
"McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said
about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump
administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His
aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China,
but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere."
And as a China scholar McMaster is not the best choice either:
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable
aggressor that can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk.
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before
he wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He
apparently ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple,
deceptive narrative is more seductive.
-- Michael
likbez, May 7, 2020 6:22 pm
The main thrust here is the US abandoning the world to China and a much weaker Russia. I am calling for
the US to play a much broader role in the world as it has economic and strategic value
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is definitely above my pay grade, but the problem that I see here is that it is very unclear where "a
much broader role in the world" ends and where "imperial overstretch" starts.
The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its
foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern.
And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol
Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue
as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country.
Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what
does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international
law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of
Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning.
https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425
Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the
global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. That's how he got anti-war independents to vote for him.
And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext,
conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch.
"... If America's adversaries were made of strawmen, the defenders of the foreign policy "Blob" would have a foolproof strategy for defeating them. Unfortunately, a recent defense of the U.S. foreign policy establishment's record is no more successful than the policies that its authors have supported. ..."
"... The authors of the FA piece want to identify the "Blob" with expert knowledge, but many of the loudest critics of the "Blob" find fault with it because so many policy debates are not informed by genuine country or regional expertise. ..."
A recent defense of the foreign policy establishment is no more successful than the policies its authors supported.
If America's adversaries were made of strawmen, the defenders of the foreign policy "Blob"
would have a foolproof strategy for defeating them. Unfortunately, a recent defense of the U.S.
foreign policy establishment's record is no more successful than the policies that its authors
have supported.
Writing for the Foreign Affairs website last week, Hal Brands, Peter Feaver, and Will
Inboden attempt to
rebut critics of the so-called "Blob," but in their attempt they demonstrate many of the very
flaws in analysis and inability to admit error that their critics have pointed out over the
years. The real record of the U.S. foreign policy establishment over the last thirty years has
been much less impressive than its defenders claim, and it has helped to create many more
avoidable calamities than they admit.
The authors of the FA piece want to identify the "Blob" with expert knowledge, but
many of the loudest critics of the "Blob" find fault with it because so many policy debates are
not informed by genuine country or regional expertise. Think back to the Iraq war debate. On
the pro-war side, there were legions of pundits and politicians that knew little or nothing
about Iraq and the surrounding region. The few historians and specialists they could find to
promote the war were extreme ideologues. On the opposing side, you had the vast majority of
regional experts and trained officials at the State Department. The U.S. invaded Iraq despite
the overwhelming consensus among people that knew the country and region best that it would be
a disaster. War supporters had no use for that expertise because it did not line up with what
they wanted to do. The "Blob" prevailed by overruling and ignoring the experts.
Many prominent foreign policy professionals from both parties jumped on the pro-war
bandwagon because they weren't terribly interested in what the experts had to say and because
backing military action to exercise American "leadership" is what these people usually do. Even
those that didn't really believe the case for war said nothing because it
was politically safer for them to conform. We have seen this happen many other times. The
conventional view endorsed by the "Blob" often has nothing to do with expert knowledge, and it
frequently flies in the face of that expertise.
It would help to start with accurate definitions. What do critics of U.S. foreign policy
mean when we talk about the "Blob"? The term refers in part to the tendency towards groupthink,
aggression, and interference in other countries' affairs among foreign policy pundits and think
tankers. It is a criticism of the reflexive bias towards "action," which almost always involves
advocacy for military options, and the disparagement of diplomatic engagement that usually goes
with it. Members of the "Blob" promote and claim to believe in a number of far-fetched myths
about "credibility" and America's "indispensable" role in the world that provide ready-made
justifications for sanctioning and bombing a long list of other countries. They usually twist
themselves into knots to avoid acknowledging U.S. responsibility for the consequences of our
government's actions, but they are the first to decry American "inaction" when something
unfortunate beyond our control happens on the other side of the world. If one or more of those
things describes you, you might be part of the "Blob."
One of the biggest failings of the "Blob" is its resistance to learning and reevaluating
core assumptions. This is one reason why the U.S. keeps making similar mistakes decade after
decade. The "Blob" not only spreads dangerous myths, but it clings to them all the more
desperately when those myths are discredited by experience. The U.S. can destabilize entire
regions for decades, but they will continue to insist that the U.S. military presence is
"stabilizing" and cannot end. U.S. interventions consistently leave countries in worse shape
than they were in before the U.S. intervened, but that does not lessen their eagerness for the
next intervention.
The authors allow that the "Blob" makes mistakes, but asserts that it "learns from them and
changes course." That is simply not true. The only learning that does seem to take place
concerns how some of the same awful policies get labeled. Advocates for regime change usually
avoid using that phrase now, but they still demand regime change in substance. Supporters of
illegal warfare still advocate for illegal war, but now they call it "restoring deterrence."
Aggressive U.S. policies have predictably led to hostile responses from other states, but the
"Blob" doesn't acknowledge the U.S. role in provoking the responses.
When presented with evidence of groupthink, the authors relabel it as "the wisdom of
professional crowds." When presented with the familiar litany of U.S. foreign policy failures,
they claim that the record is actually successful. When presented with the record of
near-constant use of force since the end of the Cold War, they declare that the U.S. "hardly
ran amok in search of monsters to destroy," and then rattle off a list of countries that the
U.S. didn't attack. You could hardly ask for more of a self-parody of what critics call the
"Blob" than boasting about all of the places that the U.S. could have invaded but didn't. Look
at all that restraint! This is akin to defending an arsonist by pointing to all of the
buildings that he didn't set on fire.
Perhaps biggest flaw in the defense of the "Blob" is the very American-centric habit of
taking credit for all positive post-Cold War developments around the world:
In short, after 1989, the deep global engagement favored by the Blob kept the world moving
forward on a generally positive track, rather than regressing to the historical mean of
tyranny, depression, and war.
How much did post-Cold War U.S. actions contribute to this outcome? Isn't it likely that
much of the world would have been "moving forward" as it did with or without the U.S.? In other
words, how much can the U.S. really take credit for the successes of other nations after the
end of the Cold War? To make the balance come out in their favor, the authors need to claim
that the U.S. deserves credit for almost all of it, but that hardly seems credible.
One of the unintentionally funniest parts of the "Blob" defense is the claim that there is
accountability for failure:
The American foreign policy establishment, finally, is generally more pragmatic than
ideological. It values prudence and security over novelty and creativity. It knows that
thinking outside the box may be useful in testing policy assumptions, but the box is usually
there for a reason, and so reflexively embracing the far-out option is dangerous. Its members
have made many mistakes, individually and collectively, but several features of the system
enforce accountability over time. Foreign policy failures, for example, are politically toxic
and often spur positive change.
This is a bold claim to make when the complete lack of accountability is one of the most
distinctive features of the "Blob." Not only do many of the same failed policies continue on
for decades, but many of the same people that advocated for failed and disastrous policies in
the past keep resurfacing to advocate for new ones. Foreign policy failures should be
toxic, but for some reason they never seem to do any harm to the people responsible for them.
There is almost no political or professional price to be paid for being consistently, horribly
wrong about foreign policy. One reason for this is the network of institutions that employ
former government officials so that people responsible for bad policies never go away. Another
is the reluctance of "Blob" members to enforce accountability among themselves. So long as
someone sticks with the consensus view of the U.S. role in the world, there is virtually
nothing that he or she can do to be expelled from the polite company of the foreign policy
establishment. Stray outside of the narrow confines of that consensus, however, and you will
quickly find yourself persona non grata.
The weakest part of their argument is the attempt to conflate other critics of the "Blob"
with the Trump administration's open hostility to expertise:
How about the critics' third argument, that escaping the influence of the Blob would make
American policy more effective and the country more secure? As it happens, a real-time test
of that proposition has been running for over three years.
This not the first time that defenders of conventional foreign policy have tried to blur the
lines between Trump and some of his staunchest non-interventionist and realist critics, and it
is no more convincing now than it was before. Trump has not governed as a conventional foreign
policy president, but neither has he seriously challenged most of the conventional U.S. role in
the world. Trump has left us with the worst of both worlds in which a largely Blobby foreign
policy has been executed by inexperienced and ignorant officials. When critics attack the
"Blob," we are objecting to the failure to rely on expertise in making policy. The
choice does not have to be between Blobby stagnation and Trumpian incompetence, but it is
unsurprising that defenders of the discredited "Blob" want to keep it that way. about the
author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo
blog . He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World
Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic,
The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email
Trump and his team have destroyed US foreign relations. They bully allies and boast to
Americans as their "success".
Americans believe the nonsense - US helped allies before so now they must sacrifice for
US causes without asking any compensation support them with full heart.
Even worse, some even believe the worthless Republican's "American value" is what allies
should sacrifice for. Sorry, they need genuine silver and gold, not your worthless
"value".
Of course, veteran of US diplomats feel sad that the alliance structure built up is
destroyed.
Don't be silly. There was nothing to destroy yet before Trump and his team entered their
offices, due to the destruction thereof having been already brought about by the said
"veteran diplomats".
Jumpin' Jehoshaphat. In their feeble, piteous attempts of relabeling they seem to have
forgotten the ancient arcane art of rebranding. Just read it (bold mine):
the wisdom of professional crowds
Oxymoronic, right? Well, frankly, I'm not sure about "oxy".
The Blob remains in power because the biggest cost of their failures is born by countries
we don't really care about, a small number of volunteer military men, and money that we
borrow. The Blob will remain in power until we squander most of our collective power and we
can no longer inflict their will on others and we become increasingly irrelevant. Until
then it will be very painful to watch.
Which brings me to the Coronavirus outbreak. It easily penetrated our shores and we are
by any honest measure the world leader in number of deaths and economic devastation despite
the fact that the first outbreak did not reach New York until March 1 from Europe. Our
response? We closed travel from the EU on March 15, our Defense establishment convinced
every MSM outlet that Russia, China, and Iran was waging and information war against the
U.S. falsely claiming that we mishandled the situation (we are good a deceiving ourselves,
aren't we), we are gearing up for a Cold War against China, but we were able to get the
Blue Angels to fly over 5 cities on a days notice. Is it too late to take the blue
pill?
You are right regarding the Blob - I would add that most (if not all) of them have zero
skin in the game and I bet that neither of those chickenhawks served in the military.
The War on Iraq provides a most instructive example. Those in foreign policy circles who
knowingly lied, those who knowingly parroted conscious lies, none of these people paid any
price for their lies, not personal or professional. Instead, they were rewarded for being
loyal accomplices.
Those who called out the lies were cast into outer darkness.
Unless and until those responsible for the stupid wars pay a very real and very personal
price for their crimes, nothing will change. For sociopaths learn only from reward and
punishment, but they do learn.
Trump's foreign policy, while based on almost complete ignorance, was light-years ahead of
the blob. In fact the worst of his actions were when he actually believed the blob and/or
did what they wanted. I mean really he hasn't started a war, he actually threatened to
withdraw from Europe if they don't pay for the protection, which at best means NATO is
toast and at worst means the yanks don't subsidize the europeans. What's so bad about his
foreign policy.
Trump has used his veto power three times already - twice to stop US involvement in the
genocidal war on Yemen, and again today to prevent him from making war on Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump has failed twice to pull out of Syria. What a pathetic weaking cuck he
is!
That picture reminds me of a line up, except usually at a line up there is only one truly
guilty party.
Few photographs better symbolize the problem with American foreign policy. At least
Colin Powell showed some redemptive recognition of failure, at least at one time.
I want to push back on the the notion that the State Dept. were on the right side of
history regarding the decision to invade Iraq. Many of those opposed to the war were still
in favor of maintaining the embargo and no-fly zones against Iraq into perpetuity. If the
war's supporters were wrong in proposing a bad solution, many of their opponents were wrong
in offering no solution at all.
Except the status quo.
In fact, this is "The Blob" - the defenders of the status quo, more than anything else.
As Larison observed, the few historians and specialists who supported the Iraq invasion
were extreme ideologues. At the same time, many of them weren't.
The recent financial turbulence in the oil markets and the global depression will have a
large impact on the conflicts in the Middle East.
Iraq:
Last night the Iraqi parliament elected a new prime minister. Mustafa al-Kadhimi is seen
as a technocrat with a good track record and politically neutral to all sides. His cabinet
includes a number of experienced people who are known for effective work.
Astonishingly both, the U.S. and Iran, have supported Kadhimi.
Great to speak today with new Iraqi PrimeMinister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. Now comes the
urgent, hard work of implementing the reforms demanded by the Iraqi people. I pledged to
help him deliver on his bold agenda for the sake of the Iraqi people.
Congratulations to Prime Minister @MAKadhimi, his Cabinet, the Parliament and most
importantly the people of Iraq for success in forming a new Government.
Iran always stands with the Iraqi people and their choice of administration.
Kadhimi has
lots of work waiting for him. The low oil price means that Iraq's budget will have a huge
deficit. It will have to borrow a lot of money most likely from the IMF. The money may come
with U.S. conditions.
There has recently been a wave a small ISIS attacks. The Jihadis were equipped with night
vision devises. There is strong suspicion that the U.S. is again using ISIS to pressure the
government.
The U.S. wants Iraq to take a position against Iran and the Iraqi militia which Iran
sponsors. But Kadhimi can not do that without losing support in the parliament. Iraq also
depends on Iranian energy.
Syria:
The military situation in Syria has changed little. The ceasefire in Idleb governorate
seems to hold. Russian and Turkish troops patrol on parts of the M4 highway after Turkey had
some harsh exchanges with the Jihadis from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham who had tried to prevent the
patrols. Turkey will have to get rid of the Jihadis, who have led
the war against Syria from its very beginning,
one way or another .
Throughout the last months Russian foreign policy grandees and oligarchs had published
essays that argued that the Syrian government had to look more at the economic situation
in Syria, which is very bad, instead of pushing for military solutions. It was not fully
clear what they were aiming at.
Then a conflict between President Assad and Syria's prime oligarch Rami Makhlouf broke
into the open. Danni Makki digs
into the whole saga . Makhlouf is a maternal cousin of Assad. Whoever wanted to do
business in Syria during the war had to go through him. He sponsored his own militia and
charity. Makhlouf, the richest man in Syria and owner of Syriatel and lots of other
companies, has now been pushed aside. But he is fighting back.
Makhlouf has little chance to win. In 2017 the Jabar brothers, also oligarchs with their
own militia, were also getting too interested in their personal profits and power. Riam
Dalati tells their story and how
they were unceremoniously moved aside.
Assad's position is now stronger
then ever and Russian companies will now be happy to do business in Syria without a Mr.
Five Percent in between.
Libya:
Turkey, working together with Qatar, has hired some 10,000 Syrian 'rebels' to fight in
Libya on the side of the Government of National Accord and its Jihadi militias. The GNA
troops have been trounced by the Libyan National Army under General Haftar. Turkey has also
send its own troops with Turkish made drones to attack Haftar's position. But most of the
drones were shot down immediately. The UAE, which supports Haftar's LNA, has now send 6
Mirage fighter jets to Egypt and uses them to bomb GNA and Turkish positions in Tripoli and
Misrata.
The 'rebels' Turkey hired have taken a lot of casualties but have not the received their
promised money. That news has reached Idleb were further recruitment efforts by Turkey now
fail to gain traction
.
Turkey:
The Turkish Lira continues to fall. The Central Bank, under control of wannabe Sultan
Erdogan, had spend more than $25 billion to prevent the Lira from breaking the barrier of 7
Lira per U.S. Dollar. It is now at 7.2 Lira/US$ and sinking further. The 44 year old Turkish
Finance Minister Berat Albayrak is Erdogan's son in law and
unqualified for the job . The Fed has rejected a request from Turkey for a swap agreement
that would have provided the country with more U.S. dollar. Those are
urgently needed :
S&P Global estimated on Wednesday that Turkey's economy needs to refinance close to
$168 billion over the next 12 months. That equates to 24% of the country's GDP.
The record-low lira makes it more costly for the country's government and companies to
pay back their dollar-denominated debt. That $168 billion of short-term external debt and
only $85 billion in gross FX reserves means the so-called "coverage ratio" is only around
50%, one of the lowest of any emerging- market economy.
Erdogan can (again) ask the Emir of Qatar to step in but the sum he needs is larger than
what Qatar might be willing or able to provide. That leaves the IMF has the only way out. But
after previous IMF loans to Turkey and the harsh austerity measures that came with them any
talk of IMF loans in Turkey are political poison and a sure way to lose elections.
Erdogan will have to cut his losses in Libya and Syria as these conflicts have become
economically unsustainable.
Lebanon:
The Ponzi scheme the Central Bank of Lebanon had used for 30 years to bind the Lebanese
Pound to the U.S. Dollar has finally fallen apart. Within months the pound fell from 1.500
per US$ to now below 4.000 per US$. Everybody who had money in a Lebanese bank has lost most
of it. Lebanon's riches of the last 30 years are gone. The country needs a new business model
which will be difficult to find. Ehsani explains how it came to
this.
Saudi Arabia:
Today the U.S. announced that it is removing
its Patriot missiles from the country. Two fighter squadrons in the area will also leave. The
U.S. navy will recall some ships from the Persian Gulf region. In early April Trump
had
threatened the Saudis with such measures if they would fail to reduce their oil output
and to thereby raise the global oil price. Some output was reduced but the old price is
falling further for a lack of demand.
Without U.S. protection a further Saudi war against the Houthi in Yemen will become untenable
.
All the above countries are also massively affected from the current pandemic. This
probably less from death in their relatively young populations than from the economic
consequences that will lead to more poverty and hunger.
If there is a winner of all these crises in the region it is Iran.
Posted by b on May 7, 2020 at 17:40 UTC | Permalink
Thanks b hope you are correct "Makhlouf, the richest man in Syria and owner of Syriatel
and lots of other companies" out of the pic... it remind me of Indonesia's Suharto mister
10%
thanks b for revisiting a crucial area pushed off the pages by corona crisis.
[..] "The U.S. wants Iraq to take a position against Iran and the Iraqi militia which
Iran sponsors. But Kadhimi can not do that without losing support in the parliament. Iraq
also depends on Iranian energy." [.]
as usual the U.S. displays its convoluted geopolitics. Repeatedly continues to grant month
to month waivers to Iraq for purchase of Iran electricity and gas while at the same time
wanting Iraq to take a position against Iran.
Exceptional idiots attempting to insert barriers between neighbours.
May 6, 2020. WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States will grant a 120-day waiver for Iraq
to continue importing electricity from Iran to help the new Iraqi government succeed, U.S.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the newly installed Iraqi prime minister.
"In support of the new government the United States will move forward with a 120-day
electricity waiver as a display of our desire to help provide the right conditions for
success," the State Department said in a statement on a call between Pompeo and Iraqi Prime
Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi.
Washington had repeatedly extended the exemption for Baghdad to use crucial Iranian
energy supplies for its power grid for periods of 90 or 120 days, [.]
Is Trump pulling protection from Saudi because they pump too much oil?
Or simply because they can't pay the protection money no matter how much they pump?
Excellent b. If there is one common thread going through all these, it is - If you don't have
the money - you can't fight wars.
With the double whammy of low oil pries and stalled economies we are going to see a lot of
changes. I would like it to be less combat, but I fear it more likely to be undisciplined
militants and troops who prey even more on local populations.
-------
One you could add to the above list is is the worsening situation on the Yemini island of
Socotra (Houthis v US and SA, v UAE etc.) A disaster because of it's unique flora.
and;
(US Near Iran )
- Two US jet fighter squadrons also have left the region.
- US will consider a reduction of the U.S. Navy presence in the Persian
Gulf.
- US officials say that Tehran no longer poses immediate threat against Saudi Arabia.
The United States and Turkey have a lot in common. Both countries are led by narcissistic and
incompetent clowns nepotistically driving their countries off the proverbial cliff. Both
geniuses concocted half baked colonial plans, and felt they could just grab other people
property (think Venezuela, Syrian, Libyan oil) in total impunity. Soon enough, Sultan Erdogan
will get his first bankruptcy star to match cretin Orange in business failure department.
"..all of these tin pot dictatorship oil rich countries are really a sick bunch.... i guess
it is the byproduct off having too much money and not enough brains..james@ 3
karlofi beat me to it james - or were you referring to Alberta?
Some points:
-Elijah is seeing the ISIS surge as bigger an more threatening as you. He mentioned the US just
cut their intelligence sharing with Iraq when ISIS went on the offensive. PMU is mobilized, but
without the intelligence from drones etc. Iraq is sadly blinded to a big extent.
With ISIS being so well outfitted, using effective strategies, and giving PMU high casualties,
this may well become the start of something very ugly. Iraq will win, but casualties in human
life and economic damage plus panic on top of Corona will still be a hellish combination.
-That Turkey will have to end its ottoman ambitions because of economic, has been said since
many years. And politically it is at least equally untenable.
Erdogan lives from his economic policy, but in the last years also from the semi-fashistic
mixture of Turkish ultra-nationalism and Islamic Sunni "values" (MB style).
He can take the IMF money and then just paint the blame on the evil western countries. But
leaving Syrian territory believing to be Turkish heartland, or giving up North Syria as buffer
zone against PKK would NEVER the excuseable. NEVER. Not for his voters, OR 85% of Turks, who
overwhelmingly support one brand or another of Turkish Ultra Nationalism (with the Sunni
Islamic ideology also supported by most).
This mindset can not be rationalized looking through rational eyes, but it has its own kind
of logic.
And giving up even an inch of belived "Turkish soil" is not even an option for the huge
majority. Be that "Turkish soil" Turkish or Syrian, or Iraq, or Greek.
If there is a winner of all these crises in the region it is Iran.
Yup, always, at least for the Iranian government, if not for most Iranians. And it doesn't
even have to try to win - it just has to sit back and watch Washington and its puppets acting
like idiots and handing victory to Teheran.
If Pompeo is so happy about the new iraqi PM, does that mean that John Bolton knows where
Mustafa al-Kadhimi's children live?
There is activity in Syria on some fronts.
In the northeastern desert, ISIS hideouts are getting cleaned up slowly. ISIS had an easy
time while the action was going on around Idlib, but now they are getting their fair share of
attention. Quite possibly the resurgence in Iraq is related to this. I hope that a joint
syrian, iraqi, russian and iranian effort will seriously clean out the last bits of the black
plague.
At the same time, Syria is about to root out some stay-behind Al Qaida and ISIS clusters in
southern Daraa. That region was pacified by agreement a few years ago and the factions that
only pretended to agree have now shown their hand. Spring time weeding time.
I am not sure that LNA is really successful against Erdogan's brotherhood proxies in western
Lybia. If GNA manages to capture the airbase in the west, that would be a very big setback for
Hafter.
I had to come back up to see who has written the article from RIAC, which I had not payed
attention to at first, to test that it was not written by the SOHR or the Syrian opposition.
For that travel we, and above all the Syrian people and legitimate government, did not need
so many saddlebags...
For to go now surrendering to the "recommendations" of the US, the IMF and the EU, Assad
could have surrendered the country at the very first moment, as he probably was offered.
That Syria has its own problems with its own oligarchs, is what? A discovery by these
thinking brains of the Valdai Club? This guy has probaly gone bald behind his ear after the
effort. Why does he not mention as a solution for the reconstruction of Syria the need of the
US leaving the oil fields which it has been exploting?
The oligarchy is very much the most accute problem everywhere, starting with Russia, still
not free from that lacra dating the "reform" of the USSR, through its willing demolition, a
problem the Coronavirus pandemic has not made but putting in everybody´s sight.
Because, who are the remaining wealth of the nations being transferred to, in face of the
collapse ( willing/planned, or not, I will put my hand on the fire for the first case...since
this all resembles way too much the demolition of the USSR, this smells of rat all the way.. )
of the capitalist system?
We have the German government bailing out Lufthansa under the exigence by its owners of that
rescue being under no conditions. the same happens in the US with Boeing and the fracking
industry..
In Spain we have open the economy for the big business already just after Easter, under
directive of the Banco de Santander in Spain, permanent guest at the Bliderberg Group
meetings.... Some countries in the EU have established there will be no rescue for big
corporations who evade taxes through tax havens in the EU, but we, for what it seems, are going
to rescue ´em all...
Taking a look at the state of certain EU banks previous to the pandemic, one gets the real
picture on that some were going to collapse with or without Coronavirus anyway.
Most of the population in the world is facing unemployment, misery, and highly likely
hunger, and then, it is Syria who need to ongo reforms, or Lebanon for that matter?. The
Lebanese Central Bank belongs to the West Banking System, as all the rest of the Central Banks.
The Lebanese government ahs been ALWAYS occupied by West and Saudi puppets, just until
recently, when Hezbollah and other representatives of the Lebanese people entered the
government, jut when the West decided to bankrupt Lebanon.....
All Mediterranean countries were making a living of tourism, as they own enough historical
sites and good weather to offer this kind of services in the international labor order. But,
why tourism was wiped out? Most probably to turn the fortunes of some in Syria and Lebanon, and
also, by passing, in the EU.....
Some were having trouble with the Brexit´s bill, the sanitzing of their biggest banks,
and the growing contestation in the streets, what better way to revive themselves and their
industries than ruining some southern pigs to then indebt them for the centuries to come as
they did with Greece? Curiously, or not so, these are the same actors hoping to take a piece of
the cake in Syria and Lebanon and allied in the US coalition...
Some were losing the war on Syria, the Chinese were willing to invest there, and make her,
along with Pakistán, part of the B&R initiative, which would had seen a flourishing
Syria and also Pakistán. Instead you have the Chinese economy paralized and the chains
of distriution cut off, becuase of the Coronavirus. Terrorism is being pushed against
Pakistán and also, as the recent incident with some "afghans" in the border, towards
Iran, all aimed at definitely destabilishing the zone and giving the shot of grace to the
Chinese initiative.
The thing is that we all need way too postponed reforms everywhere, so as to not being
continuously robbed, and in a cheeky big way every ten years or so. i
In fact, what we need is a world wide socialist revolution ( never the time was so propice,
since when the same illnesses, and I am not talking here about the Covid-19, were affecting us
all at unison...? ) and dust off the guillotines...We could start with all those idle people
talking heads "thinking" at the clubs of the rich, like the Valdai Club, the Bilderberg Club,
the Davos Summit.....and so on...those who never get untidy by any shake of "destiny"... then
follow with parasitic politicians, bought and receiving direct orders from these clubs, make
the great cleaning, disinfecting it all...
When the 2008 crisis was starting to hit in Spain, and things started to paint gloom, I was
learning a langauge with a charming group of colleagues. One of my peers, a woman with the
voice and face of a little girl, a very good person, said once that in face of not being payed
she will be willing to go out in the streets with the sawed-off shotgun...
Of course, she was joking....although, was she really doing it? Do not think, this was not
marginal people, but what you would call middle class...
@ H. Schmatz 26. "The oligarchy is very much the most accute problem everywhere, starting with
Russia, still not free from that lacra dating the "reform" of the USSR, through its willing
demolition, a problem the Coronavirus pandemic has not made but putting in everybody´s
sight."
Yes that's true, USSR was "gamed" and so are we being gamed.
@ 7 karlof1... i am aware of that, but the money and support qatar are providing turkey is part
of turkeys problem as i see it - that is one of the oil rich tin pot dictatorships i was
thinking of when i said that... i hope oil stays really low and shuts down the tar sands in
alberta permanently... i see oil tutures are putting on a pretty good showing since the
beginning of may... the link on oligarch Rami Makhlouf is pretty fascinating...
i am curious how iraq gets out from under usa servitude...it seems they can be manipulated
easily as they are so vulnerable financially... the usa put them in this position for the very
reason the usa continues to be in iraq with no interest in leaving.. they will continue to
cultivate isis and iraq needs to figure out a way to get rid of them..
@ 13 bevin... i think b was writing an article on the middle east and i happened to note qatar
and uaes direct involvement in the libya dynamic.. i was referring to those tin pot
dictatorships... but hey - if you want to talk about alberta and canada here - go for it, lol..
i suppose it depends on ones perspective how much of a difference there really is in all this
oil money-rape...
"... Throughout the last months Russian foreign policy grandees and oligarchs had published
essays that argued that the Syrian government had to look more at the economic situation in
Syria, which is very bad, instead of pushing for military solutions. It was not fully clear
what they were aiming at ..."
When the partners of the Russian International Affairs Council, on whose platform Aleksandr
Aksenenok wrote the article from which B draws the above quote, include such luminaries as the
Rand Corporation (itself funded by various beloved US government agencies like the Pentagon and DHS among
assorted others), the Carngegie Endowment for International Peace and Voice of America, what
these Russian government flunkies and handmaidens of oligarchs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky are
advocating for Syria is a neoliberal economic regime that will push the country back into the
precarious state it was in before 2011 when the Assad government was persuaded to adopt
neoliberal "reforms" that had the effect of alienating people in those parts of Syria that
rapidly came under ISIS domination, through the privatisation of natural resources. Doubtless
Rami Makhlouf and his family must have benefited from such "reforms".
There is the possibility that the West may see in Makhlouf the Syrian equivalent of a
Khodorkovsky, and Makhlouf might play up to the West to get support. Who thinks the West might
be stupid enough to throw its weight behind Makhlouf and drum him up as the legitimate
successor to Assad, the worthy Syrian equivalent of ... erm, Venezuela's shining knight in
armour Juan Guaido???
Schiff Folds: Publishes Russiagate Transcripts After Showdown With DNI by Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2020 -
18:25 Following the standoff between Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Acting DNI Richard Grenell,
the House Intelligence Committee published all of the Russia investigation transcripts Thursday
evening.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Rep. Adam Schiff is planning to selectively release information from some of the 53
declassified transcripts of witnesses that testified before Congress regarding the FBI's
Russia probe into the Trump campaign. This move, comes after a long battle against
Republican colleagues, who are fighting to make all the transcripts available to the American
public, said a U.S. official, with knowledge of Schiff's plans.
Schiff has been fighting the release of the transcripts.
The decision for Schiff to publish a selective portion of the 6,000 pages of transcripts
comes after a recent public showdown with Director of National Intelligence
Richard Grenell, who is also fighting to make all the transcripts public. In fact, Grenell
reiterated in a letter Wednesday that if Schiff doesn't make the transcripts public then he
will release them himself.
Interestingly, the committee voted unanimously in the fall of 2018, to make all the
transcripts public after declassification, which has already been done.
"Schiff's planning to selectively leak to the liberal media what he wants, while keeping
the truth from the American people," said one source, familiar with Schiff's plans.
Schiff's office did not immediately respond to an email for comment.
A congressional source familiar with the issue said "the committee voted in the last
Congress to publish all the transcripts together, precisely to avoid any staged release
calculated for political effect."
"Schiff has had possession of most of the redacted transcripts for a long time, but he
used the fact that he didn't have all of them as an excuse not to publish any," said the
congressional source.
"If he selectively publishes just some of them now, it'll be rank hypocrisy."
Allegedly Schiff is also having his senior subcommittee staff director and counsel with the
intelligence committee contact the various heads of the intelligence community asking them to
challenge plans by Grenell to release the transcripts, which were declassified prior to his
arrival at DNI.
Several sources, familiar with Schiff's actions, have stated that his refusal to release the
transcripts is based on information contained in the testimony that will destroy his Russia
hoax propaganda.
"Schiff has been sitting on a lot of these transcripts for a long time," said a Republican
congressional source.
"They were using this as an excuse to ensure that the White House wouldn't have access to
the transcripts, now he wants to selectively leak and that's the game he plays – he's
definitely shifty. "
"... In 2010, Flynn co-authored an important analysis, Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan . Flynn's key conclusion warned that the U.S. intelligence effort in Afghanistan was failing: ..."
"... The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade. ..."
"... lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches, using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S. intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion. ..."
"... During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress. ..."
"... Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support some of the Syrian rebels. ..."
"... This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014 interview with the New Yorker: ..."
"... "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian. ..."
"... His refusal to downplay the ISIS threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA position in August 2014. ..."
"... Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed policies in the Middle East ..."
"... This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama political/intelligence hit squad : ..."
"... Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness" has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam " ..."
"... But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located. ..."
"... Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did. ..."
"... If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever got to a courtroom, they'd be facing - in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial. ..."
"... Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out. ..."
"... They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North Africa, to fill in the void ..."
"... It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned, precipitated these failures. ..."
"... Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly, he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead. ..."
"... ...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and titles of the people... ..."
"... At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ. ..."
"... Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK "expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism? ..."
"... Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory. ..."
"... Thanks for the excellent summary of how Flynn became "persona non grata" to various powers in the IC. But there is another powerful group in Washington whose fervent enmity he drew: the Democratic establishment. See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/how-mike-flynn-became-americas-angriest-general-214362 ..."
"... Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling on why there was such a push to find something to prosecute Flynn over was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up." "What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington. I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find something to prosecute Flynn over. ..."
Two and one-half years ago, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller unveiled charges against
Michael Flynn for "lying to Federal agents." At the time I gave Mueller the benefit of the
doubt and assumed, incorrectly, that the investigation was fair and honest. We now know without
any doubt that the so-called investigation of Michael Flynn was frame-up. It was a punishment
in search of a crime and ultimately led the FBI to manufacture a crime in order to take out
Michael Flynn and damage the fledgling Presidency of Donald Trump.
It is important to understand the lack of proper foundation to investigate Michael Flynn as
a collaborator with Russia as part of some bizarre plot to steal the 2016 Presidential election
for Donald Trump.
Flynn was perceived as a threat to the CIA and refused to cook the intelligence for the
Obama Administration while he was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of
collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus
still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we
operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade.
Flynn's work did not sit well with Jim Clapper and John Brennan. John Schindler, a rabid
anti-Trumper, wrote a hit piece on Flynn in December 2017, that highlights the Deep State anger
at Flynn. Schindler characterizes Flynn's work in unflattering terms and
claims that Flynn :
lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches,
using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S.
intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion.
Flynn's honesty in that assessment did
not derail his next promotion -- he was sworn in as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
July 2012. Once in that position he refused to cook the intelligence. I saw this firsthand (at
the time I had access to the classified intelligence analysis by DIA with respect to the war in
Syria). During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the
Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media
reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of
ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain
and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress.
Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support
some of the Syrian rebels. The program was a failure and the attack on the CIA base in
Benghazi, Libya came close to exposing the covert effort. What the media was not reporting is
that the rebels the U.S. backed were inept. The only rebels achieving some success were the
radical jihadists aligned with ISIS and elements of Al Qaeda (e.g. Al Nusra).
This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you
recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014
interview with the New Yorker:
"The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts
on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an
uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and
reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the
homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often
sectarian.
But that was not the story that Flynn's DIA was telling. His refusal to downplay the ISIS
threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA
position in August 2014.
Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed
policies in the
Middle East :
Since taking off his uniform last August, Flynn, 56, has been in the vanguard of those
criticizing the president's policies in the Middle East, speaking out at venues ranging from
congressional hearings and trade association banquets to appearances on Fox News, CNN, Sky News
Arabia, and Japanese television, targeting the Iranian nuclear deal, the weakness of the U.S.
response to the Islamic State, and the Obama administration's refusal to call America's enemies
in the Middle East "Islamic militants."
This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task
Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence
collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama
political/intelligence hit squad :
They question why the retired general, who has earned criticism for his leadership style but
has generally been regarded as a well-intentioned professional, would assist a candidate who
has called for military actions that would constitute war crimes.
"I think Flynn and Trump are two peas in a pod," one former senior U.S. intelligence
official who knows Flynn told The Daily Beast. "They have this naïve notion that yelling
at people will just solve problems."
Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness"
has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea
that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues
the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups
like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam "
His co-author, Michael Ledeen,
is a neoconservative author and policy analyst who was involved in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Thanks to the document release on 30 April, 2020, we know that the FBI opened an
unsuccessful investigation of Flynn. Here are the key points from the memo recommending the
investigation be closed:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an particularly false factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR)
may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which
may constitute a federal crime· or threat to the national security.
The FBI predicated the investigation on predetermined criteria set forth by the CROSSFIRE
HURRICANE (CH) investigative team based on an assessment of reliable lead information received
during the course of the investigation.
The FBI queried the FBI databases and at least two other intelligence community databases
for incriminating information but found NO DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI used a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS probably Stefan Halper) to try to collect
incriminating information. The CHS claimed that Flynn was in contact with Svetlana Lokhova, a
British academic born in Russia, but a subsequent FBI search of their databases turned up NO
DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI memo concludes:
the absence of any derogatory information or lead information from these logical sources
reduced the number of investigative avenues and techniques to pursue. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation.
But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find
something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the
author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the
investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is
where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located.
They decided to pursue two lines of attack. First, to go after Flynn for allegedly failing
to register as a "Foreign Agent" because of a report his consulting firm prepared on a Turk
living in the United States that Turkey named as a "terrorist." Second, the FBI had in hand the
transcript of Flynn's conversations with Russia's Ambassador and wanted to entrap him into
lying about those conversations.
Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National
Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure
act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to
UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did.
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement in late 2017 with special prosecutor Robert Mueller
was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn admitted to killing Kennedy or having unprotected sex
with Vladimir Putin. But read the actual indictment and the accompanying agreement.
Here is the chronology of Michael Flynn's entirely appropriate actions as the National
Security Advisor to President-elect Donald Trump. This is not what an agent of Russia would do.
This is what the National Security Advisor to an incoming President would do.
December 21, 2016 --Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on
the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution").
December 22, 2016-- a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team (reportedly
Jared Kushner) directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia,
to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to
delay the vote or defeat the resolution.
December 23, 2016-- FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that
if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
On this same day, President-elect Trump spoke with Egyptian leader Sisi, who agreed to
withdraw the resolution (
link ).
[I would note that there is nothing illegal or wrong about any of this. Quite an appropriate
action, in fact, for an incoming President. Moreover, if Trump and the Russians had been
conspiring before the November election, why would Trump and team even need to persuade the
Russian Ambassador to do the biding of Trump on this issue?]
December 28, 2016-- President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take
effect the following day, imposing sanctions on Russia. Russian Ambassador Kislyak called
General Flynn (who was vacationing in the Caribbean).
December 29, 2016 , FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT
official"), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the
Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the
Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed
the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming
administration's foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the
members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the
situation.
FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the
situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT
official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including
their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
December 31, 2016-- the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had
chosen not to retaliate in response to FLYNN's request.
After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the
Presidential Transition Team about FLYNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding
the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
Michael Flynn's contact with the Russian Government and other members of the UN Security
Council in the month preceding Trump's inauguration was appropriate and normal. He did nothing
wrong. But President Obama's henchmen, including James Comey, John Brennan, Jim Clapper and
Susan Rice were out for blood and relied on the FBI to stick the shiv into General Flynn's
belly.
That travesty of justice is being methodically and systematically revealed in the documents
delivered to the Flynn defense team thanks to the efforts of Attorney General William Barr.
Barr is relying on the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri (EDMO) to review the
case and provide Brady material to the Flynn defense team. This is by the book. Doing it this
way provides the legal foundation for future prosecution of the FBI and prosecutors who abused
the General Flynn's rights and violated the Constitution. Stay tuned.
All true in my book but it would be very hard to prosecute and get convictions as the defense
would be "We were working in the best interests of the US against the dastardly Russkies"
At least half the country believes it goes the Russians interfered materially in the 2016
election. 2018 poll
Great analysis, your article added a lot of context on why Flynn was targeted. What a
horrible thing to do to a person.
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/ that has
been doing A+ work on the Flynn set up, linked to you.
If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever
got to a courtroom, they'd be facing -
in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial.
Bottom line: Until the swamp is drained and then burned (meaning all SES and over a certain GS level
bureaucrats gone), we will continue to live under the thumbs of this corrupt "ruling
class." And getting rid of all these people wouldn't make much of a difference to most
Americans; witness the notorious "shutdowns" in recent years.
Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing
his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right
thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan
was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out.
They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to
Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North
Africa, to fill in the void while they could before Russia remained weak and China yet to
fully emerge, to checkmate the grand chessboard Zbigniew wrote of while the US held
unchallenged supremacy.
Obama was very naive about what Muslims are really like in some of those parts. It's best
to liken them to Comanches. He bought into the Zbigniew/Neocon belief that they'll just be
another Taliban, but ask any Afghan who managed to escape the country at the time and they'll
tell you these guys are all devils, djinns.
It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed
like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like
situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was
part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over
American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that
they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure
to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned,
precipitated these failures.
Obama made a lot of mistakes, but thankfully he didn't make it worse by invading in spite
of his red line. I have to credit him that much, but his failures in Libya and Syria are on
par with Bush's failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Disastrous doesn't even begin to describe
these failures.
Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly,
he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his
ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead.
"... internal investigation unit". If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle
blower" to allow hearsay evidence that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the
Western world that still makes it okay to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot
about Horowitz and his IG report already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks
for the laugh.
As much as I would love to see this "ruling class" brought low, by which I mean burnt to the
ground, we face the problem of The Ruling System, outlined in this post on the Z-Man blog:
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=20405 A little snippet from the post:
...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up
on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one
thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one
another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when
they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and
titles of the people...
Z-Man examines this in various historical settings, Versailles, Communist Russia, before
arriving at The Swamp. Interesting angle.
Small world, speaking of Seymour Hersh's lengthy CIA gun-running to Syria expose in "The Red
Line and Rat Line", that all his prior media connections refused to publish at the time
(Benghazi-Obama days), until it finally appeared in the London Review of Books- or something
like that.
At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background
pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ.
Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK
"expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona
death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian
pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism?
Who was it that says there are no coincidences? Long time since I saw any media attention
given to AVAAZ, nor any final answers why the CIA was running such a big operation in
Benghazi in 2012. However, all the same names and players still swirling around gives one
pause.
Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be
connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory.
Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling
on why there was such a push
to find something to prosecute Flynn over
was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up."
"What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington.
I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find
something to prosecute Flynn over.
AVAAZ pushed FaceBook and Zuckerberg to ban about half of FB content on novel coronavirus,
starting last month, Politico gleefully reported. [Two medical doctors in California 'out of
step' with the diktats of some medical cartel's message, among those FB canceled, for
example.]
AVAAZ, which pushed regime change in Syria, no fly zone in Libya, spews hatred of Russia,
etc. is alive and well, working hard at increasing online censorship.
Their clicktivism business model and lock downs go hand in hand.
[[Avaaz discovered that over 40 percent of the coronavirus-related misinformation it found
on Facebook. . .]]
[[Avaaz said that these fake social media posts -- everything from advice about bogus
medical remedies for the virus to claims that minority groups were less susceptible to
infection -- had been shared, collectively, 1.7 million times on Facebook in six
languages]]
[[Avaaz tracked 104 claims debunked by fact-checkers to see how quickly they were removed
from the platform]]
" If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle blower" to allow hearsay evidence
that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the Western world that still makes it okay
to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot about Horowitz and his IG report
already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks for the laugh."
No laughing matter. The IG position is obviously politicized. It may be a surprise to you,
but many police forces have an internal investigation unit that has extremely wide powers
that. go far beyond those available in ordinary investigation. The staff of such units are a
rare and disliked breed and the units are managed by the natural enemies of the police -
criminal lawyers.
Given that I've seen what these units do here, I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others
were not apprehended and charged very quickly.
Jim, thank you for the further AVAAZ info. Call me gob-smacked. Hope the investigative media picks up this thread. Seymour Hersh, are
you listening? AVAAZ felt sinister during the Benghazi days - also reacll some connections
with Samantha Power and Susan Rice - Barry's Girls.
Maybe mistress Antonia Staats was on a mission; and not just being a scofflaw mistress? In
fact is she trying out to be the new S.P.E.C.T.R.E Bond Girl?
IG's are no surprise to me nor the politicalization, such as Baltimore and Chicago, cities
run by the same political party for decades. Or the "intelligence community" IG, who changed
to rules to allow the scam of Schiff's supersecret whistleblower fraud to go forward. But
then you probably forgot that guy like you did Horowitz.
"I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others were not apprehended and charged ...." Larry insists that will happen. I'm not holding my breath.
|
Ethan Paul dismantles H.R.
McMaster's "analysis"
of the Chinese government and shows how McMaster abuses the idea of strategic empathy for his
own ends:
But the reality is that McMaster, and others committed to great power competition, is
actually playing the role of Johnson and McNamara. This shines through clearest in McMaster's
selective, and ultimately flawed, application of strategic empathy.
Just as Johnson and McNamara used the Joint Chiefs as political props, soliciting their
advice or endorsement only when it could legitimize policy conclusions they had already come
to, McMaster uses strategic empathy as a symbolic exercise in self-validation. By conceiving
of China's perspective solely in terms of its tumultuous history and the Communist Party's
pathological pursuit of power and control, McMaster presents only those biproducts of
strategic empathy that confirm his policy conclusions (i.e. an intuitive grasp of China's
apparent drive to reassert itself as the "Middle Kingdom" at the expense of the United
States).
McMaster calls for "strategic empathy" in understanding how the Chinese government sees the
world, but he then stacks the deck by asserting that the government in question sees the world
in exactly the way that China hawks want to believe that they see it. That suggests that
McMaster wasn't trying terribly hard to see the world as they do. McMaster's article has been
likened to Kennan's seminal
article on Soviet foreign policy at the start of the Cold War, but the comparison only serves
to highlight how lacking McMaster's argument is and how inappropriate a similar containment
strategy would be today. Where Kennan rooted his analysis of Soviet conduct in a lifetime of
expertise in Russian history and language and his experience as a diplomat in Moscow, McMaster
bases his assessment of Chinese conduct on one visit to Beijing, a superficial survey of
Chinese history, and some boilerplate ideological claims about communism. McMaster's article
prompted some strong criticism along these lines when it came out:
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before he
wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He apparently
ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple, deceptive narrative is
more seductive.
McMaster's narrative is all the more deceptive because he claims to want to understand the
official Chinese government view, but he just substitutes the standard hawkish caricature. Near
the end of the article, he asserts, "Without effective pushback from the United States and
like-minded nations, China will become even more aggressive in promoting its statist economy
and authoritarian political model." It is possible that this could happen, but McMaster treats
it as a given without offering much proof that this is so. McMaster makes a mistake common to
China hawks that assumes that every other great power must have the same missionary,
world-spanning goals that they have. Suppose instead that the Chinese government is not
interested in that, but has a more limited strategy aimed at securing itself and establishing
itself as the leading power in its region.
Paul does a fine job of using McMaster's earlier work on the Vietnam War to expose the flaws
in his thinking about China. McMaster has often been praised for his criticism of the
military's top leaders over their role in running the war in Vietnam, but this usually
overlooks that McMaster was really arguing for a much more aggressive war effort. He faulted
the Joint Chiefs for "dereliction" because they didn't insist on escalation. Paul observes:
McMaster's tale of Vietnam is, counterintuitively, one of enduring confidence in the
U.S.'s ability to do good in the world and conquer all potential challengers, if only it
finds the will to overcome the temptations of political cowardice and stamp out bureaucratic
ineptitude. This same message runs through McMaster's tale about China: "If we compete
aggressively," and "no longer adhere to a view of China based mainly on Western aspirations,"
McMaster says, "we have reason for confidence."
McMaster would have the U.S. view China in the worst possible light as an implacable
adversary. Following this recommendation will guarantee decades of heightened tensions and
increased risks of conflict. McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something
that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different
issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to
get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the
threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures
everywhere.
As Paul notes, McMaster is minimizing the dangers and risks that his preferred policy of
confrontation entails. In that respect, he is making the same error that American leaders made
in Vietnam:
Like Johnson and McNamara before him, McMaster is misleading both the public and himself
about the costs, consequences, and likelihood for success of the path he is committed to
pursuing, and in so doing is laying the groundwork for yet another national tragedy.
McMaster's China argument is reminiscent of other arguments made by imperialists in the
past, and he relies on many of the same shoddy assumptions that they did. Like British
Russophobes in the mid-19th century, McMaster decided on a policy of aggressive containment and
then searched for rationalizations that might justify it. Jack Snyder described this in his
classic study
Myths of Empire thirty years ago:
Russia is portrayed as a unitary, rational actor with unlimited aims of conquest, but
fortunately averse to risk and weak if stopped soon enough. (p. 168)
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable aggressor that
can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk. He wants us to believe that China is at once
implacable but easily deterred, insatiable but quick to back off under pressure. We have seen
the same contradictory arguments from hawks on other issues, but it is particularly dangerous
to promote such a misleading image of a nuclear-armed major power. about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the
New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Russian diplomats have slammed The New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning series articles
about Russia's covert activities abroad as examples of "Russophobia."
The New York Times won the Pulitzer for international
reporting Monday for six investigative articles and two videos that "expos[ed] the predations
of Vladimir Putin's regime" across Africa, the Middle East and Europe. news The Global
Footprints of 'Putin's Chef' Read more Russia's Embassy in the United States accused
the Pulitzer Prize Board of "highlighting anti-Russian materials with statements that have been
repeatedly refuted not only by Russian officials, but also by life itself."
"We consider this series of New York Times articles about Russia a wonderful collection of
undiluted Russophobic fabrications that can be studied as a guide to creating false facts," the
embassy said in a Facebook post.
Meanwhile, in a separate accusation, the editor of independent Russian investigative outlet
Proekt said at least two of The New York Times' Pulitzer-winning investigations repeated its
own previous reporting without citing it.
Congrats to @nytimes on the @PulitzerPrizes for article
series that echoes our „Master and Chef" series, which was written months before NYT.
It's a pity that there's no even a link to The Project's piece in the awarded publication.
https://t.co/MsgwqaMOn0
"[T]he winners did not put a single link to the English version of our article,"
Roman Badanin wrote on Facebook,
singling out its March 14, 2019,
deep dive into Putin-linked businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin's activities in Madagascar. The
New York Times' investigation on the subject was published six months later in November.
"I still don't know what is my attitude to this situation... It's probably nice, but a bit
weird," Badanin wrote in an English-language post. Sign up for our free weekly newsletters
covering News and Business.
The best of The Moscow Times, delivered to your inbox.
"... Presidential determinations based on secret (and often false) information were sufficient to legally absolve any killings or calamities abroad. ..."
"... In 1999, Clinton unilaterally attacked Serbia, killing up to 1,500 Serb civilians in a 78 day bombing campaign justified to force the Serb government to embrace human rights and ethnic tolerance. Serbia had taken no aggression against the United States, but that did not deter Clinton from bombing Serb marketplaces, hospitals, factories, bridges, and the nation's largest television station (which was supposedly guilty of broadcasting anti-NATO propaganda). The House of Representatives took a vote and failed to support Clinton's war effort, and 31 congressmen sued Clinton for violating the War Powers Act. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after deciding that the congressmen did not have legal standing to sue. Most of the U.S. media ignored dead Serb women and children and instead portrayed the bombing as a triumph of American benevolence. ..."
"... In 2011, Obama decided to bomb Libya because the U.S. disapproved of its ruler, Muammar Gaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notified Congress that the White House "would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." Plagiarizing the Bush administration, the Obama administration indicated that congressional restraints would be "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." ..."
Fifty years ago, President Richard Nixon popped up on national television on a
Thursday night to proudly announce that he invaded Cambodia. At that time, Nixon was selling
himself as a peacemaker, promising to withdraw U.S. troops from the Vietnam War. But after the
sixth time that Nixon watched the movie "Patton," he was overwhelmed by martial fervor and
could not resist sending U.S. troops crashing into another nation.
Presidents had announced military action prior to Nixon's Cambodia surprise but there was a
surreal element to Nixon's declaration that helped launch a new era of presidential
grandstanding. Ever since then, presidents have routinely gone on television to announce
foreign attacks that almost always provoke widespread applause -- at least initially.
Back in 1970, congressional Democrats were outraged and denounced Nixon for launching an
illegal war. In his televised speech, Nixon also warned that "the forces of totalitarianism and
anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." Four days after
Nixon's speech, Ohio National Guard troops suppressed the anarchist threat by gunning down
thirteen antiwar protestors and bystanders on the campus of Kent State University, leaving four
students dead.
Three years after Nixon's surprise invasion, Congress passed the War Powers Act which
required the president to get authorization from Congress after committing U.S. troops to any
combat situation that lasted more than 60 days. Congress was seeking to check out-of-control
presidential war-making. But the law has failed to deter U.S. attacks abroad in the subsequent
decades.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton launched a missile strike against Sudan after U.S. embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists. The U.S. government never produced any
evidence linking the targets in Sudan to the terrorist attacks. The owners of the El-Shifa
Pharmaceutical Industries plant -- the largest pharmaceutical factory in East Africa -- sued
for compensation after Clinton's attack demolished their facility. Eleven years later, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit effectively dismissed the case:
"President Clinton, in his capacity as commander in chief, fired missiles at a target of his
choosing to pursue a military objective he had determined was in the national interest. Under
the Constitution, this decision is immune from judicial review." Presidential determinations
based on secret (and often false) information were sufficient to legally absolve any killings
or calamities abroad.
In 1999, Clinton unilaterally attacked Serbia, killing up to 1,500 Serb civilians in a 78
day bombing campaign justified to force the Serb government to embrace human rights and ethnic
tolerance. Serbia had taken no aggression against the United States, but that did not deter
Clinton from bombing Serb marketplaces, hospitals, factories, bridges, and the nation's largest
television station (which was supposedly guilty of broadcasting anti-NATO propaganda). The
House of Representatives took a vote and failed to support Clinton's war effort, and 31
congressmen sued Clinton for violating the War Powers Act. A federal judge dismissed the
lawsuit after deciding that the congressmen did not have legal standing to sue. Most of the
U.S. media ignored dead Serb women and children and instead portrayed the bombing as a triumph
of American benevolence.
After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush acted entitled to attack anywhere to "rid
the world of evil." Congress speedily passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
which the Bush administration and subsequent presidents have asserted authorizes U.S. attacks
on bad guys on any square mile on earth. Congressional and judicial restraints on Bush
administration killing and torturing were practically nonexistent.
Bush's excesses spurred a brief resurgence of antiwar protests which largely vanished after
the election of President Barack Obama, who quickly received a Nobel Peace Prize after taking
office. That honorific did not dissuade Obama from bombing seven nations, often based on secret
evidence accompanied by false denials of the civilian casualties inflicted by American bombings
of weddings and other bad photo ops.
In 2011, Obama decided to bomb Libya because the U.S. disapproved of its ruler, Muammar
Gaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notified Congress that the White House "would forge
ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the
mission." Plagiarizing the Bush administration, the Obama administration indicated that
congressional restraints would be "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." Obama
"had the constitutional authority" to attack Libya "because he could reasonably determine that
such use of force was in the national interest," according to the Justice Department's Office
of Legal Counsel. Yale professor Bruce Ackerman lamented that "history will say that the War
Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the
campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking."
On the campaign trail in 2016, Donald Trump denounced his opponent as "Trigger Happy
Hillary" for her enthusiasm for foreign warring. But shortly after taking office, Trump reaped
his greatest inside-the-Beltway applause for launching cruise missile strikes against the
Syrian government after allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons.
The following year, the Trump administration joined France and Britain in bombing Syria
after another alleged chemical weapons attack. Several officials with the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons leaked information showing that the chemical weapons
accusations against the Syria government were false or contrived but that was irrelevant to the
legality of the U.S. attack.
Why? Because the Justice Department ruled that President Trump could "lawfully" attack Syria
"because he
had reasonably determined that the use of force would be in the national interest." That
legal vindication for attacking Syria cited a Justice Department analysis on Cambodia from 1970
that stated that presidents could engage U.S. forces in hostilities abroad based on a "long
continued practice on the part of the Executive, acquiesced in by the Congress." The Justice
Department stressed that "no U.S. airplanes crossed into Syrian air-space" and that "the actual
attack lasted only a few minutes." So the bombs didn't count? If a foreign government used the
same argument to shrug off a few missiles launched at Washington D.C., no one in America would
be swayed that the foreign regime had not committed an act of war. But it's different when the
U.S. president orders killings.
In the decades since Nixon's Cambodia speech, presidents have avoided repeating his
reference to America being perceived as "a pitiful, helpless giant." But too many presidents
have repeated his refrain that failing to bomb abroad would mean that "our will and character"
were tested and failed. Unfortunately, the anniversary of Nixon's invasion of Cambodia passed
with little or no recognition that the unchecked power of American presidents remains a grave
threat to world peace.
About Jim Bovard Jim Bovard is the author
of Public Policy Hooligan (2012), Attention Deficit Democracy (2006), Lost Rights: The
Destruction of American Liberty (1994), and 7 other books. He is a member of the USA Today
Board of Contributors and has also written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Playboy, Washington Post, and other publications. His articles have been publicly denounced by
the chief of the FBI, the Postmaster General, the Secretary of HUD, and the heads of the DEA,
FEMA, and EEOC and numerous federal agencies.
Looks like Mueller barked to the wrong tree... And that was not accidental
Notable quotes:
"... The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago ..."
Previously sealed FBI documents indicate close contacts between Israel and the Trump
campaign and that the Mueller investigation found evidence of Israeli involvement, but
largely redacted it.
Menifee, CA (IAK) -- Newly released FBI documents suggest that Israeli government
officials were in contact with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and offered "critical
intel."
In one of the extensively redacted documents, an official who appears to be an Israeli
minister warns that Trump was "going to be defeated unless we intervene." He goes on to tell
a Trump campaign official: "The key is in your hands."
The previously classified documents were released in response to a lawsuit brought by the
Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. The unsealed
documents suggest that rather than Russia, it was Israel that covertly interfered in the
election.
While all these media companies except one seem to have ignored the apparent Israeli
connection revealed in the FBI documents, Israeli media have been quick to jump on it.
Israel's i24 News reports:
Newly released documents from the FBI suggest that Roger Stone, a senior aide in the 2016
Trump campaign, had one or more high-ranking contacts in the Israeli government willing to
help the then-Republican Party nominee win the presidential election."
Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper reports:
Tantalizing hints" of "alleged clandestine contacts came to light in recent publication of
redacted FBI documents."
The Times of Israel (TOI) the first to report on this, states:
The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and
one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a minister
without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,'
the PM, and the Prime Minister."
TOI points out: "Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel's prime minister in 2016," and reports
circumstantial evidence that the "PM" mentioned in the document refers to Netanyahu:
One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as follows: 'On or about June 28,
2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "RETURNING TO DC AFTER URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN
ROME.MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY IN NYC.' Netanyahu made a state
visit to Italy at the end of June 2016."
TOI also notes that "the Israeli government included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi
Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility for defense and foreign affairs."
Ha'aretz also names Hanebi as the likely contact, and confirms that he "was in the United
States on the dates mentioned, attending, among other things, a roll out of the first Israeli
F-35 jet at a Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas."
The previously classified FBI affidavit says: "On or about August 12, 2016, [name
redacted] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress? He is going to be
defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands! Back in the
US next week."
Another section of the affidavit states: "On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet with [name redacted] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct." (Corsi refers to Jerome Corsi, a pro-Israel commentator and author known for extremist
statements.)
Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Trump who worked on the 2016 campaign, was
convicted last year in the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between Russia
and the Trump campaign.
Stone has denied wrongdoing, consistently criticizing the accusations against him as
politically motivated. Numerous analysts have found the "Russiagate" theory unconvincing, and
the American Bar Association reported that Mueller's investigation "did not find sufficient
evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the
United States' 2016 election."
There have been previous suggestions that it was Israel that had most worked to influence
the election.
[MORE]
The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of
Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and
other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago .
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into critical
US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy and
probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and covering what
could actually be serious? That's twisted.
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into
critical US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy
and probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and
covering what could actually be serious? That's twisted.
@leveymg is reposted below, for those who want to read for themselves:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of Columbia
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT ,
)
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT
To: Any authorized law enforcement officer
An application by a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government requests
the search
of the following person or property located in the Northern District of California
(identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location):
See Attachment A.
I find that the affidavit(s), or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and
seize the person or property
described above, and that such search will reveal (identify the person or describe the property
to be seized):
See Attachment B.
YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before May 18, 2018 (not to exceed 14 days)
';$ in the daytime 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 0 at any time in the day or night because good cause
has been established.
Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt
for the property taken to the
person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt
at the place where the
property was taken.
The officer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant,
must prepare an inventory
as required by law and promptly return this warrant and inventory to Hon. Beryl A. Howell
(United States Magistrate Judge)
0 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3103a(b), I find that immediate notification may have an adverse
result listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2705 ( except for delay of trial), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to
delay notice to the person who, or whose
property, will be searched or seized (check the awropriate box)
0 for __ days (not to exceed 30) 0 until, the facts justifying, the later specific date of
Date and time issued:
Judge 's signature
City and state: Washington, DC Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 35
AO 93 (Rev 11/13) Search and Seizure Warrant (Page 2)
Return
Case No.: Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with:
Inventory made in the presence of :
Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized:
Certification
I declare under penalty of pe1jury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with
the original warrant to the
designated judge.
Date:
Executing officer's signature
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cf erk, U.S. District & Bankrupicy
Gourts for tirn District of Columbl&
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
ORDER
Case: 1: 18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
The United States has filed a motion to seal the above-captioned warrant and related
documents, including the application and affidavit in support thereof ( collectively the
"Warrant"),
and to require Google LLC, an electronic communication and/or remote computing services
with
headquarters in Mountain View, California, not to disclose the existence or contents of the
Warrant
pursuant to !8 U.S.C. § 2705(b).
The Court finds that the United States has established that a compelling governmental
interest exists to justify the requested sealing, and that there is reason to believe that
notification
of the existence of the Warrant will seriously jeopardize the investigation, including by
giving the
targets an opportunity to flee from prosecution, destroy or tamper with evidence, and
intimidate
witnesses. See 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b)(2)-(5).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion is hereby GRANTED, and that the
warrant, the application and affidavit in support thereof, all attachments thereto and other
related
materials, the instant motion to seal, and this Order be SEALED until further order of the
Court;
and
Page 1 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 35
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b), Google and its
employees shall not disclose the existence or content of the Warrant to any other person (
except
attorneys for Google for the purpose of receiving legal advice) for a period of one year
unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
Date 41/Y>lf
THE HONORABLE BERYL A. HOWELL
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 35
AO 106 (Rev. 04/10) Application for a Search Warrant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
for the
District of Columbia
MA\t !,
•'II·\! • ·r 2018
,,t,c,rk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
C . ,,gurt~ lar 1hli-•D1strlctof Gollf/nh]•
ase.1:18-sc-01518 ·'
Ass!gned To: Howell, Beryl A
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT
)
)
)
)
)
)
Assign. Date: 5;412018 ·
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search
warrant and state under
penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property
(identify the person or describe the
property to be searched and give ifs location):
See Attachment A.
located in the Northern District of _____ C,-_a-,.l"'if.=o,..rn~ia.._ __ , there is now
concealed (identijj, the
person or describe the property to be seized):
See Attachment B.
The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 4 l(c) is (check one or more):
~ evidence of a crime;
ief contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;
r'lf property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime;
D a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.
The search is related to a violation of:
Code Section
18 U.S.C. § 2
· et al.
The application is based on these facts:
See attached Affidavit.
r;/ Continued on the attached sheet.
Offense Description
aiding and abetting
see attached affidavit
D Delayed notice of __ days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: ______ ) is
requested
under 18 U.S.C. § 3103a, the basis of which is set forth on the attached sheet.
~44 Reviewed by AUSA/SAUSA: Appbcant's signature
•Aaron Zelinsky (Special Counsel's Office) Andrew Mitchell, Supervisory Special Agent,
FBI
Printed name and title
Sworn to before me and signed in my presence.
Date:
City and state: Washington, D.C. Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY ·· ti 1018
Clerk, LLS. District & Bar1i
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
@leveymg request for sealing of the record -- Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7
Filed 04/28/20 Pages 3 to 35 for those who want to read for themselves:
Judge's signature
Hon. Bery[ A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Glcrk, LL$. District & Bar1kruptcy
Gourts tor tirn District of ColumtHa
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Ass!gned To : Howell, BerylA Assign. Date : S/4/20 18
Description: Search & S izure Warrant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, Andrew Mitchell, having been first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows:
1. I make this affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant for
information associated with the following Google Account: (hereafter
the "Target Account 1"), that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or
operated by Google, Inc., a social networking company headquartered in Mountain View,
California ("Google"). The information to be searched is described in the following paragraphs
and in Attachments A and B. This affidavit is made in support of an application for a search
warrant under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(a), 2703(b)(l)(A) and 2703(c)(l)(A)to require Google
to disclose to the government copies of the information (including the content of
communications) further described in Attachment A. Upon receipt of the information described.
in Attachment A, government"authorized persons will review that information to locate the items
described in Attachment B.
2. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and have been since
2011. As a Special Agent of the FBI, I have received training and experience in investigating
criminal and national security matters.
3. The facts in this affidavit come from my personal observations, my training and experience,
and information obtained from other agents and witnesses. This affidavit is intended
to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and does
not set fotth all of my knowledge about this matter.
4. Based on my training and experience and the facts as set forth in this affidavit, there is
probable cause to believe that the Target Accounts contain communications relevant to
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), 18 U.S.C. § 3 (accessory after the
fact), 18
U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of a felony), 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §
1001 (making a
false statement); 18 U.S.C. §1651 (pe1jury); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (unauthodzed access
of a protected computer); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (attempt
and conspiracy to commit wire fraud), , and 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (foreign contribution ban)
(the "Subject
Offenses"). 1
5. As set forth below, in May 2016, Jerome CORSI provided contact information for
that there was an "OCTOBER SURPRISE COMING" and that Trump, ''[i]s going to be defeated unless
we intervene. We have critical intel." In that same time period, STONE communicated directly
via Twitter with WikiLeaks, Julian ASSANGE, and Guccifer 2.0. On July 25, 2016, STONE emailed
instructions to Jerome CORSI to "Get to Assange" in person at the Ecuadorian Embassy and "get
pending WikiLeaks emails[.]" On August 2, 2016, CORSI emailed STONE back that,"Word is friend
in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I1m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be
very damaging." On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet o determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in Oct."
1 Federal law prohibits a foreign national from making, directly or indirectly, an
expenditure or independent expenditure in connection with federal elections. 52 U.S.C. §
3012l(a)(l)(C); see also id. § 30101(9) & (17) (defining the terms "expenditure" and
"independent expenditure").
(the Target Account) is le Account, which
sed to communicate with STONE and CORSI.
JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction to issue the requested warrant because it is "a court of
competent jurisdiction" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2711. Id. §§ 2703(a),
(b)(l)(A), & (c)(l)(A). Specifically, the Court is "a district court of the United State
(including a magistrate judge of such a court) ... that has jurisqiction over the offense being
investigated." 18 U.S.C.
§ 2711(3)(A)(i). The offense conduct included activities in Washington, D.C., as detailed
below, including in paragraph 8.
PROBABLE CAUSE
A. U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) Assessment of Russian Government Backed Hacking
Activity during the 2016 Presidential Election
7. On October 7, 2016, the U.S. Depa1tment of Homeland Security and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement of an intelligence assessment of
Russian activities and intentions during the 2016 presidential election. In the report, the
USIC assessed the following, with emphasis added:
8. The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the
recent compromises of e mails frorri US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and
WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and
motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
This anti-Chinese effort may be destined for internal US (anti-civil war) needs. To make the
US population look in one direction. Obviously the why part is another question - oil, dollar
collapse, lack of food etc? But I want to point out that there has been an uptick in
aggression in other sensitive areas as well.
Todays examples are; An attack east of Aleppo on a Syrian military research centre by
Israeli aircraft. Overflying Jordan and then Iraq.
A second band of mercenary bounty hunters were captured trying to infiltrate venezuela to
kill Maduro (A revolt made by 8 at a time hunters could take several years at that rate.
The presence of four Nato Aegis ships in the Baltic which coincides with the arrival of the
Russian pipelaying ship in Kalingrad.
One thing I was horrified with, during a "quick look at" the FT Story about Putin, was the
level of "Putin did it" hate in the comments section. I had thought that the "Putin did it"
tripe was a thing of the past. I could not have been more wrong.
It is interesting that the rubbish Pompeo says is getting some resistance from the
"intelligence" agencies themselves. It appears that not everyone wants to be forced into
supporting his accusations.
"... When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. ..."
In many Ways, Trump reminds me of a Hitler/Stalin admirer. He demands certain results; if you
don't supply them, at least Trump will just fire you instead of having you shot or sent to
the Gulag -- Evidence of the many IG firings as
this article notes .
The daily lies and bald-faced propaganda is at the point where many are aware but still
all too many remain oblivious or are Brown Shirts in all but outward appearance. Pompeo would
be a perfect example of a clone if Hitler had a PR spokesperson spewing lies daily for the
press & public to digest without any thinking. Imagine Hitler with Twitter.
None of the above is meant to denigrate; rather, it's to put them into proper perspective.
I invite barflies to click here
and just look at the headlines of the posted news items--that site's biggest failing was to
omit similar criticism of Obama, Clinton, and D-Party pukes in general, although that doesn't
render today's headlines false.
Will the coming Great Depression 2.0 be global or confined to NATO nations? As with the
first Great Depression, it will be restricted to being Trans-Atlantic for that's where the
dollar zone and Neoliberalism overlap. The emerging dollar-free Eurasian trade zone
Many of Goering's quotes are very accurate as to human nature. US took in Nazi and
Japanese scientists. It wouldn't have left the propaganda behind. Goering's quote about
taking people to war - nazi's were obviously very good at it as the Germans fought until the
very end. US peasants will likely do the same.
The anti China crap filling the MSM is anglosphere in origin. Five eyes, the anglosphere
intel and propaganda warriors will be in it up to their eyeballs.
When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's
danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's
US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a
cover-up. That said, odds are on the former, as far as I'm concerned. The absolutely
sure thing is that it's not the Chinese who crafted it.
As a general rule, extreme economic decline is almost always followed by extreme
international conflict. Sometimes, these disasters can be attributed to the human survival
imperative and the desire to accumulate resources during crisis. But most often, war amid
fiscal distress is usually a means for the political and financial elite to distract the masses
away from their empty wallets and empty stomachs.
War galvanizes societies, usually under false pretenses . I'm not talking about superficial
"police actions" or absurd crusades to "spread democracy" to Third World enclaves that don't
want it. No, I'm talking about REAL war: war that threatens the fabric of a culture, war that
tumbles violently across people's doorsteps. The reality of near-total annihilation is what
oligarchs use to avoid blame for economic distress while molding nations and populations.
Because of the very predictable correlation between financial catastrophe and military
conflagration, it makes quite a bit of sense for Americans today to be concerned. Never before
in history has our country been so close to full-spectrum economic collapse, the kind that
kills currencies and simultaneously plunges hundreds of millions of people into poverty. It is
a collapse that has progressed thanks to the deliberate efforts of international financiers and
central banks. It only follows that the mind-boggling scale of the situation would "require" a
grand distraction to match.
It is difficult to predict what form this distraction will take and where it will begin,
primarily because the elites have so many options. The Mideast is certainly an ever-looming
possibility. Iran is a viable catalyst. Syria is not entirely off the table. Saudi Arabia and
Israel are now essentially working together, forming a strange alliance that could promise
considerable turmoil -- even without the aid of the United States. Plenty of Americans still
fear the Al Qaeda bogeyman, and a terrorist attack is not hard to fabricate. However, when I
look at the shift of economic power and military deployment, the potential danger areas appear
to be growing not only in the dry deserts of Syria and Iran, but also in the politically
volatile waters of the East China Sea.
China is THE key to any outright implosion of the U.S. monetary system. Other countries,
like Saudi Arabia, may play a part; but ultimately it will be China that deals the decisive
blow against the dollar's world reserve status. China's dollar and Treasury bond holdings could
be used as a weapon to trigger a global sell-off of dollar-denominated assets. China has
stopped future increases of dollar forex holdings, and has cut the use of the dollar in
bilateral trade agreements with multiple countries. Oil-producing nations are shifting
alliances to China because it is now the world's largest consumer of petroleum. And, China has
clearly been preparing for this eventuality for years. So, given these circumstances, how can
the U.S. government conceive of confrontation with the East? Challenging one's creditors to a
duel does not usually end well. At the very least, it would be economic suicide. But perhaps
that is the point. Perhaps America is meant to make this seemingly idiotic leap.
Here are just some of the signs of a buildup to conflict...
Currency Wars And Shooting Wars
In March 2009, U.S. military and intelligence officials gathered to participate in a
simulated war game , a hypothetical economic struggle between the United States and
China.
The conclusions of the war game were ominous. The participants determined that there was no
way for the United States to win in an economic battle with China. The Chinese had a
counterstrategy to every U.S. effort and an ace up their sleeve – namely, their U.S.
dollar reserves, which they could use as a monetary neutron bomb, a chain reaction that would
result in the abandonment of the dollar by exporters around the world . They also found that
China has been quietly accumulating hard assets (including land and gold) across globe, using
sovereign wealth funds, government-controlled front companies, and private equity funds to make
the purchases. China could use these tangible assets as a hedge to protect against the eventual
devaluation of its U.S. dollar and Treasury holdings, meaning the losses on its remaining U.S.
financial investments was acceptable should it decide to crush the dollar.
The natural response of those skeptical of the war game and its findings is to claim that
the American military would be the ultimate trump card and probable response to a Chinese
economic threat. Of course, China's relationship with Russia suggests a possible alliance
against such an action and would definitely negate the use of nuclear weapons (unless the
elites plan nuclear Armageddon). That said, it is highly likely that the U.S. government would
respond with military action to a Chinese dollar dump, not unlike Germany's rise to
militarization and totalitarianism after the hyperinflationary implosion of the mark. The idea
that anyone except the internationalists could "win" such a venture, though, is foolish.
I would suggest that this may actually be the plan of globalists in the United States and
their counterparts in Asia and Europe. China's rise to financial prominence is not due to its
economic prowess. In fact, China is ripe with poor fiscal judgment calls and infrastructure
projects that have gone nowhere. But what China does have on its side are massive capital
inflows from global banks and corporations, mainly based in the United States and the European
Union. And, it has help in the spread of its currency (the Yuan) from entities like JPMorgan
Chase and Co. The International Monetary Fund is seeking to include China in its global basket
currency, the SDR, which would give China even more leverage to use in breaking the dollar's
reserve status. Corporate financiers and central bankers have made it more
than possible for China to kill the dollar , which they openly suggest is a "good thing."
Is it possible that the war game scenarios carried out by the Pentagon and elitist
think-tanks like the RAND Corporation were not meant to prevent a war with China, but to ensure
one takes place?
The Senkaku Islands
Every terrible war has a trigger point, an event that history books later claim "started it
all." For the Spanish-American War, it was the bombing of the USS Maine. For World War I it was
the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. For U.S. involvement in World War I,
it was the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-Boat. For U.S. involvement in World War II,
it was the attack on Pearl Harbor. For Vietnam, it was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (I recommend
readers look into the hidden history behind all of these events). While the initial outbreak of
war always appears to be spontaneous, the reality is that most wars are planned far in
advance.
As evidence indicates, China has been deliberately positioned to levy an economic blow
against the United States. Our government is fully aware what the results of that attack will
be, considering they have gamed the scenario multiple times. And, by RAND Corporation's own
admission, China and the United States have been preparing for physical confrontation for some
time, centered on the concept of pre-emptive strikes
. Meaning, the response both sides have exclusively trained for in the event of confrontation
is to attack the other first!
The seemingly simple and petty dispute over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea
actually provides a perfect environment for the pre-emptive powder keg to explode.
China has recently declared an "air defense zone" that extends over the islands, which Japan
has already claimed as its own. China, South Korea and the United States have all moved to defy
this defense zone. South Korea has even extended its own air defense zone to
overlap China's .
China has responded with warnings that its military aircraft will now monitor the region and
demands that other nations provide it with civilian airline flight paths. China has also stated
that it plans to
create MORE arbitrary defense zones in the near future.
The U.S. government under Barack Obama has long planned a military shift into the Pacific,
which is meant specifically to counter China's increased presence. It's almost as if the White
House knew a confrontation was coming .
China, with its limited navy, has focused more of its energy and funding into advanced
missile technologies -- including "ship killers," which fly too low and fast to be detected
with current radar. This is the same strategy of cheap compact precision warfare being adopted
by countries like Syria and Iran, and it is designed specifically to disrupt tradition American
military tactics.
Currently, very little diplomatic headway has been made or attempted in regards to the
Senkaku Islands. The culmination of various ingredients so far makes for a sour stew.
All that is required now is that one trigger event -- that one ironic "twist of fate" that
mainstream historians love so much, the spark that lights the fuse. China could suddenly sell a
mass quantity of U.S. Treasuries, perhaps in response to the renewed debt debate next spring.
The United States could use pre-emption to take down a Chinese military plane or submarine. A
random missile could destroy a passenger airliner traveling through the defense zone, and both
sides could blame each other. The point is nothing good could come from the escalation over
Senkaku.
Why Is War Useful?
What could possibly be gained by fomenting a war between the United States and China? What
could possibly be gained by throwing America's economy, the supposed "goose that lays the
golden eggs", to the fiscal wolves? As stated earlier, distraction is paramount, and fear is
valuable political and social capital.
Global financiers created the circumstances that have led to America's probable economic
demise, but they don't want to be blamed for it. War provides the perfect cover for monetary
collapse, and a war with China might become the cover to end all covers. The resulting fiscal
damage and the terror Americans would face could be overwhelming. Activists who question the
legitimacy of the U.S. government and its actions, once considered champions of free speech,
could easily be labeled "treasonous" during wartime by authorities and the frightened masses.
(If the government is willing to use the Internal Revenue Service against us today, just think
about who it will send after us during the chaos of a losing war tomorrow.) A lockdown of civil
liberties could be instituted behind the fog of this national panic.
Primarily, war tends to influence the masses to agree to more centralization, to relinquish
their rights in the name of the "greater good", and to accept less transparency in government
and more power in the hands of fewer people. Most important, though, is war's usefulness as a
philosophical manipulation after the dust has settled.
After nearly every war of the 20 th and 21 st century, the subsequent
propaganda implies one message in particular: National sovereignty, or nationalism, is the
cause of all our problems. The establishment then claims that there is only one solution that
will solve these problems: globalization.
This article by Andrew Hunter , the chairman of the Australian Fabian Society, is exactly
the kind of narrative I expect to hear if conflict arises between the United States and
China.
National identity and sovereignty are the scapegoats, and the Fabians (globalist
propagandists) are quick to point a finger. Their assertion is that nation states should no
longer exist, borders should be erased and a one-world economic system and government should be
founded. Only then will war and financial strife end. Who will be in charge of this
interdependent one world utopia? I'll give you three guesses...
The Fabians, of course, make no mention of global bankers and their instigation of nearly
every war and depression for the past 100 years; and these are invariably the same people that
will end up in positions of authority if globalization comes to fruition. What the majority of
people do not yet understand is that globalists have no loyalties to any particular country,
and they are perfectly willing to sacrifice governments, economies, even entire cultures, in
the pursuit of their "ideal society". "Order out of chaos" is their motto, after all. The
bottom line is that a war between China and the United States will not be caused by national
sovereignty. Rather, it will be caused by elitists looking for a way to END national
sovereignty. That's why such a hypothetical conflict, a conflict that has been gamed by think
tanks for years, is likely to be forced into reality.
@FB
Soooo your proof that I am a troll is that I didn't spell a German to Russian to English
borrow word correctly and capitalized it on a website comment board? And your follow-up slam
dunk is that I am new to the site. To really take it to the next level of critical thinking,
you throw in some ad hominim attacks and deny my education? Move over Sherlock Holmes, we got
a real sleuth here.
My diploma number is 107732 0012900, awarded on June 5th, 2019 and signed by
Шестопал Е. Б. and
Байков А. А.. My thesis was titled: "Russia
in sub-Saharan Africa: Approaches, Interests and a New Frontier for Cooperation with China"
so yeah actually I know quite a bit about Russia's relationship with China. You're welcome to
read it. You'd find my recommendations in the conclusion would not go over well at the CIA.
That I took intelligence analysis courses from the likes of Andrey Bezrukov would not make me
a shoo-in either. Anyway, I assumed this crowd didn't require a lengthy numbering of
America's crimes as a preface to holding an opinion about Russia.
hey never cared about being in some sort of 'club' to begin with international relations
isn't junior high, which one would expect a 'graduate' of international relations to
know
That is funny that you say that because that is *exactly* the impression that I got from
my diplomacy classes. It was like 24/7 LARP set to The Emperor's New Clothes. I am not
talking about the attitude toward the Putin or the Russian government – that was
surprisingly neutral and refreshingly open to discussion – just about how politics are
conducted in general. It was astonishingly – by my admittedly cynical standards –
juvenile. I cannot even imagine how asinine diplomacy and political wheeling and dealing in
the West must be, as they take it all deadly serious in Russia.
All Russia ever cared about was having normal relations friendly if possible, but on
equal footing the entire tone of your fantasy is straight out of the '90s only deluded
Washington hacks still dream that we are living in the '90s
That is true. I don't think Russia is still the 90's. I wasn't here in the 90's anyway, so
I cannot even make that comparison. What I said is that, from my observation and experience,
the people who are still in charge are the same who forged their careers in the 90's and that
their thinking has evolved only in response to betrayals by the US, not due to any
fundamental problem with how the US operates. Russia is fine to play by the rules set out be
Washington, but they are eternally bewildered that those rules only apply to them because
otherwise they would be forced to swallow the truths of Lenin and Marx. For professors
arriving in late model black Mercedes driven by chauffeurs, that would be awkward. For
Russian elites, it is the fact that the game is rigged against them which is the problem, not
the game itself.
Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system.
These types of banks are called "gyro or giro" banking. When you take out a loan, you are
borrowing existing money. The bank does not hypothecate new money into existence.
The movie "It's a wonderful life" is a battle between two types of banking, the Gyro Bank,
vs Hypothecation Bank.
Gyro banking has been subsumed by the more dishonest Hypothecation methods that usurers
prefer. Gyro banks like U.S. Savings and Loans, and their equivalents around the world, have
slowly disappeared. In U.S. it was the (((usual suspects))) that were responsible for
S&L's disappearing.
Gryo banking has another nemesis, and that is money origination. If a national-state
creates new money debt free, then laboring savers will eventually have a "pile o money" to
loan out. Without debt free from Treasury, then laboring savers will be storing money that
at-source originated as a hypothecation event elsewhere in the banking system.
In other words, it is not enough to have a Gyro saving bank, the "credit" origination
problem elsewhere hasn't been dealt with.
One of Saker's points is that Putin did not listen to Stolypin Group's Sergei Glaziev and
instead is listening to economic liberals like Elvira Sakhipzadovna Nabiullina . The Stolypin
group is on-point, and yet they have been marginalized. Why?
Liberalism's swan song is seductive, and one of its tenets is that you need to borrow
"credit" on international markets to then buy "international goods." Another tenet is that
you can get rich and become an Oligarch too, and live a life of blowing snow up your nose,
and having hooker's galore living the life on another's labor is usury magic that works.
A national state does not need to borrow credit, when it can make its own. The only time a
national state needs to borrow another countries money type, or international banker money
like Federal Reserve Notes, is to acquire something your nation doesn't have . say
petroleum.
In Russia's case, its economy can be almost completely autarkial, and hence liberalism's
swan song is BS, and Putin hasn't gotten the memo. Putin doesn't understand economy, or has
purposefully ignored Glazyev for some reason.
Saker is correct, Russia would be doing much better if Putin had listened to Glazyev Much
better means an economy probably two or three times what it is now, and the six'th column
would be nowhere to be found.
The money power is never trivial, and it informs just about everything else in a
civilization. I feel the same as Saker, I like Putin but Putin has failed spectacularly by
not understanding how money works, and falling for economic Liberalism's swan song.
Hitler had somebody like Glazyev. His name was Reinhardt, and because Reinhardt was
nationalist and illiberal, Germany's economy was able to take off and had a large measure of
autarky.
Germany spent debt free "labor certificates" into the economy per Reinhardt (and later
Schact's) method.
"... What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had. In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff. ..."
"... The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the "liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right. ..."
"... Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due to the very high interest rates. ..."
"... First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015. Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war nonetheless. ..."
"... The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow. ..."
"... if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin. ..."
"... If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition". ..."
"... I have always, and still do, consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often "insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin. ..."
"... This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". ..."
"... "Too often in our history we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as such". ..."
"... Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime in power" might appear to be. ..."
"... These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution, while in reality trying to create the conditions for one. ..."
"... There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever since Putin came to power. ..."
"... This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western "alphabet soup". ..."
"... Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists. ..."
"... The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they are not willing to call for a revolution). ..."
"... That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II, or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their intelligence level ..."
For those of us who followed the Russian Internet there is a highly visible phenomenon
taking place which is quite startling: there are a lot of anti-Putin videos posted on YouTube
or its Russian equivalents. Not only that, but a flurry of channels has recently appeared which
seem to have made bashing Putin or Mishustin their full-time job. Of course, there have always
been anti-Putin and anti-Medvedev videos in the past, but what makes this new wave so different
from the old one is that they attack Putin and Mishustin not from pro-Western positions, but
from putatively Russian patriotic positions. Even the supposed (not true) "personal advisor" to
Putin and national-Bolshevik (true), Alexander Dugin has joined that movement (see
here if you understand
Russian).
This is a new, interesting and complex phenomenon, and I will try to unpack it here.
First, we have to remember that Putin was extremely successful at destroying the pro-Western
opposition which, while shown on a daily basis on Russian TV, represents something in the 3-5%
of the people at most. You might ask why they are so frequent on TV, and the reason is simple:
the more they talk, the more they are hated.
So far from silencing the opposition, the Kremlin not only gives it air time, it even pays
opposition figures top dollars to participate in the most popular talk shows. See here and
here for
more details
Truly, the reputation of the pro-Western "liberal" (in the Russian sense) opposition is now
roadkill in Russia. Yes, there is a core of Russophobic Russians who hate Russia with a passion
(they refer to it as "Rashka") and their hatred for everything Russian is so obvious that they
are universally despised all over the country (the one big exception being Moscow where there
is a much stronger "liberal" opposition which gets the support of all those who had a great
time pillaging Russia in the 1990s and who now hate Putin for putting an end to their
malfeasance).
As for the Duma opposition, it is an opposition only in name. They make noises, they bitch
here and there, they condemn this or that, but at the end of the day, they will not represent a
credible opposition at all.
The chart is in Russian, but it is also extremely simple to understand. On the Y axis, you
see the percentage of people who "totally trust" and "mostly trust" the six politicians, in
order: Putin, Mishustin, Zhirinovskii, Ziuganov, Mironov and Medvedev. The the X axis you see
the time frame going from July 2019 to April 2020.
The only thing which really matters is this: in spite all the objective and subjective
problems of Russia, in spite of a widely unpopular pension reform, in spite of all the western
sanctions and in spite of the pandemic, Putin still sits alone in a rock-solid position: he has
the overwhelming support of the Russian people. This single cause pretty much explains
everything else I will be talking about today.
As most of you probably remember, there were already several waves of anti-Putin PSYOPS in
the past, but they all failed for very simple reasons:
Most Russians remember the horrors of
the 1990s when the pro-Western "liberals" were in power. Second, the Russian people could
observe how the West put bona fide rabidly russophobic Nazis in power in Kiev.
The liberals expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Ukronazi regime. Few Russians doubt
that if the pro-western "liberals" got to power, they would turn Russia into something very
similar to today's Ukraine. Next, the Russians could follow, day after day, how the Ukraine
imploded, went through a bloody civil war, underwent a almost total de-industrialization and
ended up with a real buffoon as President (Zelenskii just appointed, I kid you not, Saakashvili
as Vice Prime Minister of the Ukraine, that is all you need to know to get the full measure of
what kind of clueless imbecile Zelenskii is!). Not only do the liberals blame Russia for what
happened to this poor country, they openly support Zelenskii. Most (all?) of the pro-western
"NGO" (I put that in quotation marks, because these putatively non-governmental organization
were entirely financed by western governments, mostly US and UK) were legally forced to reveal
their sources of financing and most of them got listed as "foreign agents". Others were simply
kicked out of Russia. Thus, it became impossible for the AngloZionists to trigger what appeared
to be "mass protests" under these condition. There is a solid "anti-Maidan" movement in Russia
(including in Moscow!) which is ready to "pounce" (politically) in case of any Maidan-like
movement in Russia. I strongly suspect that the FSB has a warm if unofficial collaboration with
them. The Russian internal security services (FSB, FSO, National Guard, etc.) saw a major
revival under Putin and they are now not only more powerful than in the past, but also much
better organized to deal with subversion. As for the armed forces are solidly behind Putin and
Shoigu. While in the 1990s Russia was basically defenseless, Russia today is a very tough nut
to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations. Last, but not least, the Russian liberals are
so obviously from the class Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as " obrazovanshchina ", a word hard to
translate but which roughly means "pretend [to be] educated": these folks have always
considered themselves very superior to the vast majority of the Russian people and they simply
cannot hide their contempt for the "common man" (very similar to Hillary's "deporables"). The
common man fully realizes that and, quite logically, profoundly distrusts and even hates
"liberals".
There came a moment when the western curators of the Russian 5th column realized that
calling Putin names in the western press, or publicly accusing him of being a "bloody despot"
and a "KGB killer" might work with the gullible and brainwashed western audience, but it got
absolutely no traction whatsoever in Russia.
And then, somebody, somewhere (I don't know who, or where) came up with an truly brilliant
idea: accusing Putin of not being a patriot and declare that he is a puppet in the hands of the
AngloZionist Empire. This was nothing short of brilliant, I have to admit that.
First, they tried to sell the idea that Putin was about to "sell out" (or "trade")
Novorussia. One theory was that Russia would stand by and let the Ukronazis invade Novorussia.
Another one was that the US and Russia would make a secret deal and "give" Syria to Putin, if
he "gave" Novorussia to the Empire. Alternatively, there was the version that Russia would
"give" Syria to Trump and he would "give" Novorussia to Putin. The actual narrative does not
matter. What matters, A LOT, is that Putin was not presented as the "new Hitler" who would
invade Poland and the Baltics, who would poison the Skripals, who would hack DNC servers and
"put Trump into power". These plain stupid fairy tales had not credibility in Russia. But Putin
"selling out" Novorussia was much more credible, especially after it was clear that Russia did
not allow the DNR/LNR forces to seize Mariupol.
I remain convinced that this was the correct decision. Why? Because had the DNR/LNR forces
entered Mariupol their critical supply lines would have been cut off by an envelopment maneuver
by the Ukrainian forces. Yes, the DNR/LNR forces did have the power needed to take Mariupol,
but then they would end up surrounded by Ukronazi forces in a "cauldron/siege" kind of
situation which would then have forced Russia to openly intervene to either support these
forces. That was a no brainer in military terms, but in political terms this would have been a
disaster for Russia and a dream come true to the AngloZionists who could (finally!) "prove"
that Russia was involved all along. The folks in the Russian General Staff are clearly much
smarter than the couch-generals which were accusing Russia of treason for now letting Mariupol
be liberated.
Eventually, both the "sellout Syria" and the "sellout Novorussia" narratives lost their
traction and the PSYOPS specialists in the West tried another good one: Putin became the
obedient servant of Israel and, personally, Netanyahu. The arguments were very similar: Putin
did not allow Syrians (or Russians) to shoot down Israeli aircraft over the Mediterranean or
Lebanon, Putin did not use the famous S-400 to protect Syrian targets from Israeli strikes, and
Putin did not land an airborne division in Syria to deal with the Takfiris. And nevermind here
the fact that the officially declared Russian objectives in Syria were only to " stabilize the
legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise " (see here for
details). The simple truth is that Putin never said that he would liberate each square meter of
Syrian land from the Takfiris nor did he promise to defend Syria against Israel!
Still, for a while the Internet was inundated with articles claiming that Putin and
Netanyahu were closely coordinating their every step and that Putin was Israel's chum.
Eventually, this canard also lost a lot of credibility. After all, most folks are smart
enough to realize that if Putin wanted to help Israel, all he had to do is well exactly
*nothing*: the Takfiris would take Damascus and it would be "game over" for a civilized Syria
and the Israelis would have a perfect pretext to intervene.
As I have already mentioned in
a past article , these were the original Israeli goals for Syria:
Bring down a
strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security
services. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone"
by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by
unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each
other to death, then create a "security zone", but this time in Lebanon. Prevent the creation
of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines. Create
a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Make it possible for
Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar,
Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition
of forces. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.
It is quite easy nowadays to prove the two following theses: 1) Israel dismally failed to
achieve ANY of the above set goals and 2) the Russian intervention is the one single most
important factor which prevented Israel from achieving these goals (the 2nd most important one
was the heroic support given by Iran and Hezbollah who, quite literally, "saved the day",
especially during the early phases of the Russian intervention. Only an ignorant or dishonest
person could seriously claim that Russia and Israel are working together when Russia, in
reality, completely defeated Israel in Syria.
Still, while the first PSYOP (Putin the new Hitler) failed, and while the second PSYOP
(Putin the sellout) also failed, the PSYOP specialists in the West came up with a much more
potentially dangerous and effective PSYOP operation.
But first, they did something truly brilliant: they realized that their best allies in
Russia would not be the (frankly, clueless) "liberals" but that they would find a much more
powerful "ally" in those nostalgic of the Soviet Union. This I have to explain in some
detail.
First, there is one thing human psychology which I have observed all my life: we tend to
remember the good and forget the bad. Today, most of what I remember from boot-camp (and even
"survival week") sounds like fun times. The truth is that while in boot camp I hated almost
every day. In a similar way, a lot of Russian have developed a kind of nostalgia for the Soviet
era. I can understand that. After all, during the 50s the USSR achieved a truly miraculous
rebirth, then in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of true triumphs. Finally, even in the hated
80s the USSR did achieve absolutely spectacular things (in science, technology, etc.). This is
all true. What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was
oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian
people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had.
In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff.
Furthermore, a lot of folks who had high positions during the Soviet era did lose it all.
And now that Russia is objectively undergoing various difficult trials, these folks have
"smelled blood" and they clearly hope that by some miracle Putin will be overthrown. He won't,
if only for the following very basic reasons:
The kind of state apparatus which protects
Putin today can easily deal with this new, pseudo (I will explain below why I say "pseudo")
patriotic opposition. In the ranks of this opposition there is absolutely no credible leader
(remember the chart above!) This opposition mostly complains, but offers no real solutions.
The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who
absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new
Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the
"liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right.
The (in my opinion) sad reality is that, for all his immense qualities, Putin is indeed a
liberal, at least an economic sense. This manifests itself in two very different ways:
Putin
has still not removed all of the 5th columnists (aka "Atlantic Integrationists" aka "Washington
consensus" types) from power. Yes, he did ditch Medvedev, but others (Nabiulina, Siluanov,
etc.) are still there. Putin inherited a very bad system where almost all they key actors were
5th columnists. Not just a few (in)famous individuals, but an entire CLASS (in a Marxist sense
of the term) of people who hate anything "social" and who support "liberal" ideas just so they
can fill their pockets.
Here is the paradox: the USSR died in 1991-1993, Putin is an anti-Communist, but there STILL
is a (Soviet-style) Nomenklatura in Russia, except for now
they are often referred to as "oligarchs" (which is incorrect because, say, the Ukrainian
oligarch truly decide the fate of the nation whereas this new Russian Nomenklatura
does not decide the fate of Russia as a whole, but they have a major influence in the financial
sector, which is what they care mostly about).
So we have something of a, maybe not quite "perfect", but still very dangerous storm looming
over Russia. How? Consider this:
Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian
liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many
financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major
Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians
from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of
going under due to the very high interest rates.
One key problem in Russia is that both the Central Bank and the major commercial banks only
care about their profits. What Russia truly needs is a state-owed DEVELOPMENT bank whose goal
would not be millions and billions for the few, but making it possible for the creativity of
the Russian people to truly blossom. Today, we see the exact opposite in Russia.
So what is my beef with this social ( if not quite "Socialist") opposition?
They are so focused on their narrow complaints that they completely miss the big picture.
Let me explain.
First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015.
Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war
nonetheless. The key characteristic of a real war is that victory is only achieved by one
side, the other is fully defeated. Which means that the war between the AngloZionist Empire is
an existential one: one party will win and survive, the other one will disappear and will be
replaced with a qualitatively new polity/society. The Neo-Communist Russian opposition
steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only
the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia
and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow.
Well, of course they know that. But they pretend not to. And this is why I think of them as
the 6th column (as opposed to the 5th, openly "liberal" and pro-Western one).
Second, while this opposition is, in my opinion, absolutely correct in deploring Putin's
apparent belief that following the advice of what I would call "IMF types" is safer than
following recommendations of what could be loosely called "opposition economists" (here I think
of Glaziev, whose views I personally fully support), they fail to realize the risks involved in
crushing the "IMF types". The sad truth is that Russian banks are very powerful and that in
many ways, the state cannot afford totally alienating them. Right now the banks support Putin
only because he supports them. But if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev
and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin.
If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with
military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military
victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition".
So let me repeat it here: I do not consider NATO or the US as credible military threats to
Russia, unless they decide to use nuclear weapons, at which point both Russia and the West
would suffer terribly. But even in this scenario, Russia would prevail (Russia has a 10-15 year
advantage against the US in both civilian and military nuclear technologies and the Russian
society is far more survivable one -- if this topic is of interest to you, just read Dmitry
Orlov's books who explains it all better than I ever could). I have always, and still do,
consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often
"insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any
Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin.
This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the
future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely
devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless
Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". Having listened to many
tens of their videos, I can tell you with total security that far from fearing a bloody
revolution, these folks in reality dream of such a revolution.
"Too often in our history
we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an
opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as
such".
Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered
from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the
consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at
the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished
as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be
worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime
in power" might appear to be.
Putin is acutely aware of that (see image).
These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution,
while in reality trying to create the conditions for one.
Now let me be clear: I am absolutely convinced that NO revolution (Neo-Communist or other)
is possible in Russia. More accurately, while I do believe that an attempt for a revolution
could happen, I believe that any coup/revolution against Putin is bound to fail. Why? The
graphic above.
Even if by some (horrible) miracle, it was possible to defeat/neutralize the combined power
of the FSB+FSO+National Guard+Armed forces (which I find impossible), this "success" would be
limited to Moscow or, at most, the Moscow Oblast. Beyond that it is all "Putin territory". In
terms of firepower, the Moscow Oblast has a lot of first-rate units, but it does not even come
close to what the "rest of Russia" could engage (just the 58th Army in the south would be
unstoppable). But even that is not truly crucial. The truly crucial thing following any
coup/revolution would be the 70%+ of Russian people who, for the first time in centuries, truly
believe that Putin stands for their interest and that he is "their man". These people will
never accept any illegal attempt to remove Putin from power. That is the key reason why no
successful revolution is currently possible in Russia.
But while any revolution/coup would be bound to fail, it could very much result in a
bloodbath way bigger than what happened in 1993 (where the military was mostly not engaged in
the events).
Now lets add it all up.
There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to
ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the
Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens
the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever
since Putin came to power.
This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no
official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western
"alphabet soup".
Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a
very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian
Sovereignists.
So what is the solution?
Putin needs to preempt any civil unrest. Removing Medvedev and replacing him by Mishustin
was the correct move, but it was also too little too late. Frankly, I believe that it is high
time for Putin to finally openly break with the "Washington consensus types" and listen to
Glaziev who, at least, is no Communist.
Russia has always been a collectivistic society, and she needs to stop apologizing (even
just mentally) for this. Instead, she should openly and fully embrace her collectivistic
culture and traditions and show the "Washington consensus" types to the door.
Yes, the Moscow elites will be furious, but it is also high time to tell these folks that
they don't own Russia, and that while they could make a killing prostituting themselves to the
Empire, most Russian don't want to do that.
The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is
a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right
now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He
needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but
by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they
are not willing to call for a revolution).
Does that sound complicated or even convoluted? If it does, it is because it is. But for all
the nuances we can discern a bottom line: it is not worth prevailing (or even failing) if that
weakens/threatens Russia. Right now, the Neo-Communist opposition is, objectively, a threat to
the stability and prosperity of Russia. That does NOT, however, mean that these folks are
always wrong. They often are spot on, 100% correct.
Putin needs to prove them wrong by listening to them and do the right thing.
Difficult? Yes. Doable? Yes. Therefore he has to do it.
Russia needs to be strong for the sake of global civilization, human decency, religious
freedom, etc, not only for her own good. going back to communism and Godlessness should be
unthinkable. nor should we sell our souls for 30 kopeks of silver to become the dumping
ground for western filth and surplus.
Russia has the unique position, the space and resources, an intelligent population, Orthodox
tradition to show mankind that a decent, safe, compassionate, sound existence is
possible.
although great leaders are a gift from Above, the state also should make every effort to
identify and prepare Putin's successor while strengthening the institutions so that the
people will perceive them as their own and will not be tempted to support revolutionary
radicals again.
First of all, Russian electorate have much better sources and the grasp of the international
political scene than the American media's self-centered pseudo-trues.
Putin's obvious pros:
-Reclaimed Russian crucial energy industry from the pillaging by
Yeltsin oligarchs. Now babysat by the UK and Israel. -Russian voters' motto: "We vote for a
leader that is most criticized and slandered by our enemies and adversaries. Vote almost
never for their selected puppet a la Kasparov." -Putin's brilliant move to reclaimed Crimea
-- administratively attached to Ukraine in 1954 by a communist dictate after being centuries
part of Russia -- by a democratic mean. -Western sanctions are viewed by the Russian
electorate as a declaration of the "enemy status". Furthermore, they are also viewed as a
sinister attempt to slow down the Russian economic progress. -NATO backstabbing expansion to
Russian border. Continuation of Western military encircling Russia -- US military in Poland.
-Opposing Western clumsy interference in Ukraine or in Georgia. Liberating S. Ossetia from
the Georgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister.
I have always seen Putin as a late, reluctant, and often only partially effective reacter to
a crisis, never someone who proactively acts to defuse one before it gets bad. I will repeat
what I've said many, many times: in 2014 Putin could have sent two battalions of Spetsnaz
into Kiev, routed the Ukranazi coup regime, reinstated Yanukovych, and withdrawn with the
warning that if there was ever again any attempt to stage another Maidan Russian troops would
be back and this time to stay. Instead he got Russia blamed for an invasion he should have
but did not carry out, and consequently sanctions that are still in effect to this day, not
to speak of a NATO proxy thrust against the Russian heartland. (That Russia needed the
sanctions and that they were good for Russia is another thing entirely; it isn't as though
Putin planned them to turn out like that.)
In Syria in 2015 Putin waited until the government was in desperate straits -- similar to
the final stages of the Libyan government forces' collapse in 2011 as Obama's terrorists
advanced on Tripoli -- before sending in small commando detachments and the air force. And
even then the failure to defend Syria, an ally of Russia, which has given Russia bases,
against zionazi bombing is inexcusable. For one thing it cost Russia a valuable
reconnaissance plane with priceless trained crew, after which Putin first rushed to absolve
Nazinyahu of blame before even calling the crew's families. For another the refusal to use
the S 400 merely gives the Amerikastanis an excuse to portray the S 400s as hyped,
ineffective weapons Russia does not dare to actually use. How is showing Putin's obvious
affinity to the zionazi pseudostate "anti Russian" in any way? It's the absolute and obvious
truth, from Putin's own record.
This is also why Putin will do nothing about the capitalist leeches still sucking Russia
dry (many of whom are zionazi citizens); he will have to be forced into it and then will try
to get away with cosmetic measures, leaving as much undone as he possibly can. That he has
not already eliminated the oligarchy is proof enough of that. No amount of Saker excuses is
enough to hide the fact; what could the banks do to harm Putin, given the popularity the
Saker keeps touting? You'll see that the Saker is very careful not to say anything about what
they could, he just says that they could. You'd almost think he just made it up.
I agree about the Moscow "liberals"; I met a few of them and they're always smartly
dressed, fluent in English -- with an inevitable American accent -- and they hate Russia more
than anything. I recall meeting a couple in this town in late 2014 or early 2015. I remember
saying that I support Russia's help to the Donbass freedom fighters. The woman's eyes went
round. "But why? This is a great burden for Russia, none of our business, we should never
have got involved " There is an excellent argument for shifting the capital from Moscow back
to St Petersburg, or, if that's too strategically vulnerable, to Volgograd or some other city
in the Russian interior.
By the way, as one of the "neo communists", as the Saker dismissively calls us -- in an
obvious effort to conflate us with the neo-nazis -- let me ask a question: let's suppose
everything the Saker says is correct. Well, then, is Putin immortal? No? So what happens when
he dies or retires? Who will take over? Will the "pro-Putin population" switch its loyalty to
a replacement from Putin's party, given that most of them are so despised that United Russia
keeps losing local elections from Moscow to Vladivostok? If not, what happens but either a
total change of course or .a bloody revolution?
I can certainly say that there are people in United Russia who quite openly work for the West
and push for western liberal projects in Russia, as well as attack patriotic forces.
What kind of joke is that to have people like this in the so called ruling party and in
various Duma comitees? Why is this even allowed? Why are they still there?
Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system. Only the local depositors
would own the bank. The bank's functioning management would be controlled by the
owners/depositors. One depositor -- one vote.
These banks would make loans only to local businesses and homeowners. They would have
nothing to do with Moscow. They would build honesty and stability.
That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the
Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II,
or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their
intelligence level . The jerk already swallowed the virus-thing, hook and sinker. He's
gonna be reeled-in in no time.
As a citizen of one of the top ten nations on our Earth (US) -- I believe that Putin is the
savviest, most stable conscientious foreign policy leader of the lot.
He handled both the Ukraine and Syria without getting into all out wars. Both a
considerable achievement, considering Jews played major antagonistic roles in both
confrontations.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist He should have annexed East Ukraine with 12 mil Russians and its
historical Russian cities. When McCain and Biden's puppets were installed in Kiev they banned
the Russian language -- that was the right time to act and killings would have been avoided.
Russia and China deeply underestimate the extent and determination of the US and toadies to
have in place well funded campaigns to blacken those countries names, reputations and
standing. It's awful listening to Chinese or Russian officials making ritual formal protests.
And then doing nothing. Letting their country be undermined and infiltrated, allowing the
minds of the public elsewhere be poisoned. This is how the Colour Revolutions get their
traction.
It's the continual, weak, feeble and inept lack of action by Russia and China against the
western engines of smear. And this state of affairs seriously disheartens their allies and
supporters. Please stop being too reasonable, find your backbone and righteousness and FIGHT!
For Pete's sake.
@Passer
by Sad to say that Putin should have done more internally.
Saker 's point about a national bank is telling. Russia's Central Bank should have it's
neoliberals attrited. Russia's Anglo-zionists should have also been quietly & invisibly
defanged & sent into "outer-space". More actions against NGO's need to also be taken.
A nation in Russia's precarious position re: the West, can afford only so much internal
treachery .
This is not to suggest any of this would be easy. However, Putin has had & still has
considerable popular support -- political Capital capable of being used to take risky but
"right" reforms.
I'm an American living in Moscow for the last 5 years. I've also had the special privilege to
earn a masters degree in politics and economics at the Ministry of Foreign Affair's
university, MGIMO. I can say, as someone who has viewed this situation here from virtually
every angle possible as a foreigner; "Putin" has done nothing good for Russia domestically
that has not been an unplanned side effect of sanctions. And don't get me wrong, the
sanctions were the best thing that could have happened here. But all the official pro-Russia
grandstanding on the international stage aside, there are endless news stories of Russia
lobbying for readmission to the club, pleading with the US to cooperate and a return to the
status-quo. The people who make the policy here and run the institutions are all holdovers
from the 90's. Their overarching concern is that Russia -- ie the elites themselves -- are
"treated with respect" by the Western plutocracy.
But what has changed here since 2014? An explosion in traffic cameras and fines, more
restrictions (prescriptions and bans) on medicines, inflation, reforms (attacks) in pensions
and healthcare, skyrocketing housing costs and an simmering education crisis from preschool
to university where money increasingly buys limited space over need or merit. Now like a
rotten cherry on top, there is this quarantine which seems arbitrary except when you realize
the whole police force has been turned against the citizens to check QR code passes. Who is
deemed essential is also arbitrary and favors the government while bankrupting everyone else.
Gasterbyters, the backbone of the economy, are literally destitute. Russians also dislike
seeing the government luxuriously spend resources in the form of political-point scoring
coronavirus aid to the US and Italy, and then abruptly flip-flopping on the severity of the
pandemic at home. On tv its is Corona Vision 24/7 here, while families with small children
are forced out of work and cramped into tiny apartments in ugly neighborhoods, forbidden to
walk more than 10 meters from their door, their money and sanity running out. Russians who
are able, flout the quarantine at every opportunity, more concerned about being harassed by
police than getting sick.
There is a lot more I could say, but I will leave it at on this note; This new wave of
disillusionment is not coming from the West. The West has virtually no direct influence here
anymore. This is all homegrown.
Although I have admired President Putin for many years now, I have never agreed with his
economic policies. It was sad to read that he fired S. Glazyev as an adviser. When will
President Putin see that following western style economic policies is a tragedy waiting to
happen for Russia. As is happening now to most of the western countries, especially the US
and EU.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist Its a great mystery to me why Putin released Mikhail
Khodorkovsky. Maybe there was a good reason. No clue, it just seems odd especially when you
realize this freed oligarch was the power behind Browder's Magnitzky Act.
'Remembering only the good and forgetting the bad' is what every bad ruler, every bad
culture, demands of those it misleads.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire has been the master of that con game for its entire existence,
back to the start of English Reformation. Bolsheviks were clumsy brutes compared to
Anglo-Zionists even in their early days when they lacked sophistication and finesse.
Apr 19, 2020 US corporate takeover -- Biden 2020 Today, the U.S is living through a power
grab by lobbyists and moneyed interests in government -- the way Russia did after the Soviet
collapse of the 1990s.
Apr 2, 2020 Putin reveals KEY to political success: the poor man
Which is the bigger political influence on President Putin? Multinational corporations,
filthy rich oligarchs or financial institutions? He asserts -- it is the sentiment of 'the
common man' that is responsible for his popularity and long-standing political career.
Mar 12, 2020 Putin: The US Made A Colony Out Of Ukraine But They Want It Sustained By
Russian Money!
The 20 Questions with Vladimir Putin project is an interview with the President of Russia
on the most topical subjects of social and political life in Russia and the world.
I am afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you Saker on this issue. I just can't see how
a communist can be a traitor to their country. Some of the biggest patriots ever produced in
history have been communists. Not just in Russia, but in other countries like North Korea,
Vietnam, Cuba, China. They are willing to do anything for their country. Same thing with
modern communists, I don't see them betraying their country for personal gain.
My theory is like this: Patriotism is different in Capitalist countries (or as they like
to call themselves democracies) than in Communist countries. First of all, Capitalism has 2
types of elites -- real ones and political elites -- who are nothing more than domestic
servants, in other words nobodies. Communism usually has only one type of elites --
political. They are the only game in town.
I know that they ascribed terms such as cult of personalities to Communist leaders, but
the real megalomaniacs and narcissists can really be found among the 2 types of capitalist
elites. Those are the one that are really in love with themselves.
So how does patriotism work in communism vs. capitalism? Well, for one thing, patriotism
means love for one's country. As we all know, a country is a collection of dead rocks,
(hopefully) some arable land, few mountains and so on. Basically a country usually needs a
spokesperson. That's where the elites come in. They are the spokespersons for the needs of
the country.
I believe that communist elites are more honest spokespersons than capitalist ones. Why?
Well for one thing all communist elites were usually 1st generation elites, meaning they were
new on the job and they didn't have the span of few generations time to degenerate like the
capitalist elites. Communist elites for the most could still remember the time when they were
not elites but very ordinary people -- except maybe now the Kim dynasty in North Korea which
is in its 3rd generation of dynastic cycle.
But still, the flow of patriotism is very similar in both "communist" and capitalist
countries. Patriotism flows from the poor dumbos to the rich and powerful elites -- whether
they are political or economic elites. Patriotism whose intended recipient is the fatherland
always gets intercepted by the elites and then processed.
Basically, what that means is that when an ordinary person expresses love and affection
for their country -- it's usually ends up being manifested as love and affection for their
elites.
Remember, a country is just a pile of rocks and some other geological features, -- doesn't
know how to process affection from patriots. But the elites do, and they are the usual
beneficiaries of patriotism.
If love for your country is always a love for the elites, why do the stupid always fall
for the same trick? Well, I guess there are not too many options left, one of them being a
traitor. Still, I believe that communist elites were more honest brokers and managers of
patriotic love, because the managed to pass more of the patriotism to its intended target --
the homeland, than it was ever case with capitalist elites.
Sure, Stalin had few dachas and property that he would have been hard-pressed to explain
how he earned, but it was nothing compared to the spoils from patriotism that elites in
capitalism receive as a payout for being spokespersons for the needs of their countries.
I just don't see a communist doing something with personal benefit in mind first, and
putting the well-being of their country as a second consideration. It usually doesn't happen,
and hopefully the new generation of communists in Russia will keep up with that
tradition.
@Cyrano
Because he is one of those chronic complainers. We dont want him here because he will change
the words "Russia" and "Moscow" in his comment to "USA and Washington" and just reprint the
comment again. That comrade is all puffed up, no pun intended, with his dialogue.
@jbwilson24
I know what you mean, but you are splitting hairs -- a supremacist is a supremacist is a
supremacist. German supremacist, Anglo-Saxon supremacist, Jewish supremacist -- it all leads
to the same result.
Ukraine is dominated by supremacists. That all of Jewish supremacy, Nationalist Socialist
supremacy (the rank parts of the ideology mind you), ISIS, find themselves working and
cooperating in a historically alien land, shows that supremacists really don't mind working
with each other, before whatever the greater enemy they attack is destroyed.. Kinda like the
prelude to Highlander!
25.12. 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
Baker told Gorbachev: "Look, if you remove your [300,000] troops [from east Germany] and
allow unification of Germany in NATO, NATO will not expand one inch to the east."
Saker's blind love for all things Putin, a faith in the man against all facts and logic, has
continually amazed me for years.
Putin is using Syria for Russia's advantage: 1.) a Mediterranean port at Tartus and
airfield at Kheimem; 2.) as a 'live fire' weapons testing and demonstration area, much as
Israel uses Gaza for same. Sales of Russian armaments have soared since entering Syria.
As I recall, Putin has allowed at least two Dunkirk moments, when he had ISIS on the ropes
and then agreed to a cease fire when his generals were furious at not being permitted to
finish the Takfiris off, once and for all. I, too, was furious at the time, predicting they
would simply re-trench, re-arm and continue to terrorize the hapless Syrians, which they did
for years, and may even make a comeback from Iraq (with America and Israel's help, of
course).
Same idiocy was applied, and is still being applied regarding Turkey's open and obvious
arming and supporting the terrorist scum of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Idlib, as innocent
Syrians continue to suffer therefrom, and we daily read of the brave Syrian fighters' being
killed and maimed by these Al-Qaeda butchers .
He has let Syria's eastern oil fields fall into the hands of the US, and allowed the
Turds, excuse me, the Kurds far too much leeway in the north.
He even allows Israel to bomb Syrian territory with absolute impunity, killing countless
Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian soldiers in the process, when a few freely operated S-300
batteries would allow the Syrians to smoke the Israeli's missiles with ease, and protect
their homeland from hundreds of brazen attacks by the Jews. Yet he denies the Syrians such
freedom, allowing the Israelis to continue their onslaught unabated.
Why? Why does he ignore the advice of his top generals to wipe out ISIS when the
opportunities arose years ago, and allow Israel to continually attack with high-precision
missiles Syrian/Hezbollah/Iranian fighters, just short of allowing the Jews to directly bomb
Assad and Damascus into the stone age, again, with complete impunity? Certainly, the existing
partition of Syria could have been easily avoided long ago, if he simply followed his
general's advice.
And why did he come out and endorse Netanyahu for PM last year, despite continually saying
Russia does not stick its nose into other countries' political affairs?
But to my mind, any world 'leader' who simply cannot control himself publicly and feels
compelled to forcibly lift a small child's t-shirt and slather the tot's bare stomach with
kisses, right in front of countless on-lookers and the international press, in Russia's most
famous public square, and then declare to the BBC thereafter that, "I wanted to cuddle him
like a kitten ", possibly reveals a great deal about why Putin seems to so frequently kiss
another offensive body part publicly, that being Israel's obnoxious, murderous butt ..
Well despite all the "well wishers" here and against saker's expert advice about what she
should be doing, Russia is still somehow alive and kicking and generally getting to be a
better place to live. Imagine that. While the countries the "well wishers" hail from are not
becoming better places to live and rather than alive and kicking are much better described as
zombiefied and twitching.
"Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations."
Correction, democratic Russia is still a tough nut to crack. But Putin cannot rule
forever, and so long as Russia is a democracy, and when there is no longer a strong and
charismatic leader, it is in considerable danger of subversion by the 'AngloZionists'. You
bet that they are waiting for this, the current situation being a preparation, to keep the
fire burning, but when and if Putin is gone, the Western trojan horses already inside will
unleash their puppets of disruption, and the AngloZionists and their Western puppets outside
will attack it vehemently, like a pack of wolves.
As one Russian joke puts it, lets' have cutlets separately and flies separately.
One thing is Youtube, FB, Wiki, and the rest of globohomo-controlled media. They would
host anything anti-Putin, because Putin is continuously stepping on the most sensitive part
of their anatomy: the wallet. If globohomo hates you, you must have done at least something
good.
The other thing is the feelings of Russians who actually live in the country. They
rightfully feel that oligarchs and the state that often acts as their cover are robbing them.
They clearly see that education is going down from Soviet levels (although it still has a
long way to go to become as dismal as the US education). They see that the best part of
healthcare is the holdover from Soviet times, whereas "progressive" paid medicine is fraud
and extortion. But that's exactly what "healthcare" is in the US, as current epidemic
demonstrated in no uncertain terms. They also see that recent pension "reform" was designed
to rob them yet again. What's more, they are at least 90% right.
So, maybe it's not the "6th column", after all? Maybe Russia is actually acquiring an
opposition worth the name? Patriotic opposition, in contrast to "liberal opposition"
consisting exclusively of traitors? If so, it's good, not bad, for the country. Nobody is
infallible, Putin included.
@Quartermaster
The US invaded Ukraine with Nuland's thugs during the Sochi Olympics
Crimea went back home. It did not want be part of Nulandistan.
Donbass does not want to be a US/Israel colony. This is the reason it revolted.
Notice the recent Ukrainegate nonsense. Why would USIsrael care so much about Ukraine if
Ukraine was really an independent nation? It is not, it is a USIsrael colony --
Nulandistan.
@ComradePuff
First I see you just parachuted into this website with this, your very first post
We usually have a welcoming ceremony for new trolls
We look at the cartoonish drivel they post and quickly point out glaring giveaways
Like 'Gasterbyters' which is not actually a word in any language
Your instructions from your troll room supervisor may have referred to the German word
'gastarbeiter' which means 'guest worker'
This expression is not a proper noun and does not get capitalized
And you're trying to tell us you have earned a master's degree from one of Moscow's most
prestigious universities..?
Yeah no, I don't think so cheeseball
Guest workers are 'crucial' to Russia..?
Again total bunk the only countries where guest workers might be 'essential' is in the
Gulf oil monarchies, where they often outnumber the natives
The US is not going to collapse if the Mexican workers take a beating neither will Germany
nor any industrial country with foreign workers why should Russia..?
And then your main whopper NOBODY in the Putin administration is 'begging' the west for
anything much less to be accepted back in some 'club'
Russia has moved on a long time ago they never cared about being in some sort of 'club' to
begin with international relations isn't junior high, which one would expect a 'graduate' of
international relations to know
All Russia ever cared about was having normal relations friendly if possible, but on equal
footing the entire tone of your fantasy is straight out of the '90s only deluded Washington
hacks still dream that we are living in the '90s
In case you haven't noticed Russia has much bigger fish to fry than to obsess over a
tottering empire
The partnership with China for instance the country with the most money, plus the country
with the most advanced military technology
I'd say it's not actually looking good for Exceptionalistan
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish -- courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western))) banks.
It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic Slav to
get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
The departing ambassador is a female from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. A Ukrainian
"Nationalist" by descent. Incapable of thinking of the interests of this unfortunate
country.
In the UK, looks like Tom Tugendhat, chair of the foreign affairs committee, is spreading the
China-did-it propaganda, after his comments on the BBC last week. He can file it alongside
his promotion of the White Helmets and the Skripal affair.
"There is a disconnect between what average people feel as threats to their security and
what the Beltway does," said Khanna, "I don't dismiss traditional challenges. Obviously you
have Russian aggression in Ukraine and Georgia, and Russian election interference. Obviously,
you have the rise of China authoritarian capitalism and their foray into Africa and their
potential disruption of the navigation of the seas."
Khanna said his constituents understand the challenges posed by Russia and China, but they
want the country to balance these priorities against the need to prepare for future pandemics,
the effects of climate change and the risks posed by cyberattacks and emerging
technologies.
For years, the former threats have dominated American national security strategy - and
federal spending priorities. "We have a $740 billion Pentagon budget," Khanna said. "That's
$130 billion more than where Obama had it. To put that into context, that $130 billion
could triple the NIH budget" and boost funds for the CDC and FEMA.
"In other words, if Trump had put that money into our public health, we would not have had
this pandemic to the extent that we have," he continued. "We would have had testing earlier. We
possibly could have had a faster track to a cure or to a vaccine."
Concern over this programmatic imbalance could also dog passage of the upcoming National
Defense Authorization Act. Khanna said that progressives are likely to withhold support if the
bill does not "show very compelling reasons" spending increases are tied directly to fighting
the coronavirus pandemic. Asked if he thought moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to
force the bill through the House, Khanna replied that he was "not dismissing" the possibility
but warned that they would be "writing off a lot of the progressive base and the independent
base."
Khanna says that he has learned from last year, when all the measures passed by the House
were stripped out in conference with the Republican-controlled Senate. "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on us. We're not going to pass a bill without an iron commitment that
they're going to keep some of those top priorities." Included in his list are
prohibitions for any unauthorized war with North Korea and with Iran, both passed last year
by the House and stripped by the Senate.
Khanna hopes the House will serve as a proving ground for new ideas about the relationship
between military spending and the nation's safety. "We need to have a new approach to national
security in the 21st century," he said. "We need people in our generation who are not
derivative thinkers, recycling what they learned from the Cold War, but who are willing to be
original."
"I don't underestimate the status quo," Khanna concluded. "We can be optimistic and then end
up defaulting to the same thinking and same people. But I'm hopeful that this crisis really
will make us re-examine some of these questions."
"That's our challenge."
The entire interview with Rep. Khanna is available here on Press The Button starting at
10pm tonight.
Joe Cirincione is the president and Zack Brown a policy associate at Ploughshares Fund, a
global security foundation.
Representative Ro Khanna (D.-CA) recently laid down some new rules for the Pentagon budget:
Fund public health over weapons; freeze defense programs at current levels; resist Senate
pressure to cave on House priorities; and develop a "modern, expansive definition of national
security that includes the risk of pandemics and climate change." High on his list of possible
cuts are the massive increases for new nuclear weapons proposed by President Donald Trump,
including a freeze on the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
High on his list of
possible cuts are the massive increases for new nuclear weapons proposed by President Donald
Trump, including a freeze on the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). He will also
press for sound national security policies to be included in the annual Pentagon spending bill
and for the House leadership to defend these priorities.
"One place we're looking is to limit the modernization of ICBMs," he said in an interview on
the national security podcast, Press The Button . Instead, Khanna
wants Congress to "put that money into coronavirus research, or vaccine research, or developing
manufacturing capacity for masks. I think those types of red lines are not only possible but
would be politically very popular."
Khanna's views carry great weight with his colleagues and within national security circles.
Serving his second term in the House, he is the first vice-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , a member of the
House Armed Services
Committee , and was co-chair for Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.
His opposition to the new missile comes just weeks after the U.S. Air Force announced it
seeks to
accelerate the missile program marked by cost overruns and a controversial
bidding process that left Northrop Grumman as the sole contractor. The new missile could
cost as much as
$150 billion . Air Force program managers are speeding "to get things awarded on contract
as quickly as possible,"
noted budget expert Todd Harrison, "so that becomes harder to reverse if there's a new
administration."
Khanna called the land-based leg of the nuclear triad "one of the greatest threats of
nuclear war," noting that former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once
testified to their "false alarm danger." He said he is working with another former defense
secretary, William Perry, who has
termed these missiles "some of the most dangerous weapons in the world," and called for
their phase-out.
Khanna's new rules could thwart the furious lobbying by defense contractors for
billions of dollars in the next COVID aid package. He says these funds should be put into
more critical areas and that defense contractors should get "not a dime." "We should not be
increasing funding for industries that don't need it, that aren't critical to coronavirus, that
aren't critical to our national security, that are just going to the defense industrial base,"
Khanna said. "It's just not the priority right now."
Khanna picked up some heavyweight support for this position when Rep. Adam Smith (D.-WA),
the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
announced last Wednesday that he, too, was opposed to new funds for defense
contractors.
"The defense [budget] last year was $738 billion," said Smith. "I'm not saying that there
aren't needs within the Department of Defense, I'm saying they have a lot of money and ought to
spend that money to meet those needs." A letter by 62 national organizations to the House
leadership last week also
opposed any additional funds to the Pentagon this year.
This opposition by a leader of the Progressive Caucus and by the highest-ranking national
security Democrat in Congress, moreover, comes
amid growing calls for a fundamental rethink of U.S. national security in response to the
pandemic.
... ... ...
For years, the former threats have dominated American national security
strategy - and federal spending priorities. "We have a $740 billion Pentagon budget," Khanna
said. "That's
$130 billion more than where Obama had it. To put that into context, that $130 billion
could triple the NIH budget" and boost funds for the CDC and FEMA.
"In other words, if Trump had put that money into our public health, we would not have had
this pandemic to the extent that we have," he continued. "We would have had testing earlier. We
possibly could have had a faster track to a cure or to a vaccine."
Concern over this programmatic imbalance could also dog passage of the upcoming National
Defense Authorization Act. Khanna said that progressives are likely to withhold support if the
bill does not "show very compelling reasons" spending increases are tied directly to fighting
the coronavirus pandemic. Asked if he thought moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to
force the bill through the House, Khanna replied that he was "not dismissing" the possibility
but warned that they would be "writing off a lot of the progressive base and the independent
base."
Khanna says that he has learned from last year, when all the measures passed by the House
were stripped out in conference with the Republican-controlled Senate. "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on us. We're not going to pass a bill without an iron commitment that
they're going to keep some of those top priorities." Included in his list are
prohibitions for any unauthorized war with North Korea and with Iran, both passed last year
by the House and stripped by the Senate.
Khanna hopes the House will serve as a proving ground for new ideas about the relationship
between military spending and the nation's safety. "We need to have a new approach to national
security in the 21st century," he said. "We need people in our generation who are not
derivative thinkers, recycling what they learned from the Cold War, but who are willing to be
original."
"I don't underestimate the status quo," Khanna concluded. "We can be optimistic and then end
up defaulting to the same thinking and same people. But I'm hopeful that this crisis really
will make us re-examine some of these questions."
"That's our challenge."
The entire interview with Rep. Khanna is available here on Press The Button starting at
10pm tonight.
This is essentially variant of Russiagate with Trump and Pompeo playing the role of Muller
Notable quotes:
"... Any fool in the C19th could have told Trump and his fellow members of the political class what to do: make concessions!underwrite all wages! introduce immediately, free healthcare (abandon the powerful but in the scheme of things tiny Health Insurance industry)! ..."
"... Instead, as everything around them crumbles, they are trying to rally the people (divided into ethnic, social, racial, linguistic and pigmentary factions) into forgetting everything and blaming China. ..."
The script that Trump is following-confident that the Democrats can be counted upon to copy
it- is the one that, his mentor in politics and much else, Roy Cohn developed for the
unlamented Senator McCarthy.
But, and this will be news in Washington, it is not 1950 anymore. The conditions that made
it possible to push the red scare underlying the first Cold War, including rising living
standards and full employment for most of the working class, the rise of the suburbs, the GI
Bill allowing unprecedented social mobility and unchallenged (in reality if not in the
fevered brains on the right) hegemony of the United States, economically, financially,
militarily and culturally- all that has crumbled away.
Trump is trying the 'blame China, fear the reds' strategy because it is all that he can
think of and nobody else within miles of the White House has a clue what to do. Why should
they? None of them has the least interest in public policy, let alone the common welfare, the
political culture in the US is so corrupted by careerism, bribery, revolving doors,
oligarchical diktats and, above all, greed, greed and greed that nobody with any brains
spares a moment's thought on thinking matters through.
The US ruling class is in the position that the French Aristocracy had reached by 1789- it
has no conception that it will not rule forever, only a tiny minority thinks ahead in terms
of dealing with fundamental changes. And there is no understanding of the fragility of their
positions.
Any fool in the C19th could have told Trump and his fellow members of the political class
what to do: make concessions!underwrite all wages! introduce immediately, free healthcare
(abandon the powerful but in the scheme of things tiny Health Insurance industry)!
Instead, as everything around them crumbles, they are trying to rally the people (divided
into ethnic, social, racial, linguistic and pigmentary factions) into forgetting everything
and blaming China.
The first time it was a tragedy, leading to the deaths of millions, most of them in south
east Asia, this time it promises to be something much more amusing.
Yesterday was a rent day and a pay day- fear, frustration, anger and a justified sense of
being tricked again are mounting everywhere. Unless the US government takes a U turn it will
be a very long hot summer.
this was the main goal from the very beginning. I said that was the aim of USA the minute its
fake corporate owned media began to scream about the virus. I said that in The Faker's
site(The Saker). This virus was a God sent, exactly when USA needed to get the world to hate
China, because that was THE ONLY WAY to stop China's rise against the West. Make the world
hate China. This very fact alone proves to me the virus isnt natural but is a bio engineered
bio weapon. The mere coincidence is a proof.
Part 1: The Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood at Home
Introduction
Under a misguided illusion that Islamists can be regarded as moderates worthy of partnership
with democracies and other civilized states in the war against jihadism, the Barack Obama
administration has undertaken a series high-stakes, ideologically-driven and naive policy
gambits driven by the U.S. president's dangerous sympathy for Islam. In and of itself such a
sympathy is not necessarily a problem if it is moderate and indirectly influences a few,
non-strategic policies. However, when it becomes the ideological foundation for U.S. foreign
policy and strategy across the Muslim world, it is downright dangerous and a potentially
catastrophic miscalculation. The upshot of Obama's miscalculation has been the simultaneous
destabilization of whole regions of the world, the weakening of key allies, the alienation of
potential ones, and the possibility that for the first time since World War Two the West and
Eurasia will be riven by violence, terrorism and war.
The catastrophic failure of Obama's pro-Islamic foreign policy is shaping the perceptions
and calculus of friends, enemies, foes, and 'frenemies' alike. For great powers, his policies
offer risks and opportunities but, more importantly, they demand a complete re-thinking of what
U.S. foreign policy goals are and a rapid policy response to the picture that comes out of such
re-thinking. This has become especially true when it comes to the single great power the
expanse of which stretches along the most of the Muslim world's northern periphery –
Russia. Therefore, Moscow is in the grips of a major revamping and reinvigoration of its
foreign policy activity along its southern periphery. In each case the need to do so can be
reasonably argue to have been necessitated by American mistakes and failures–from South
and Central Asia in the east to North Africa in the west.
Here I will focus on the most recent cases of the Arab Spring and demonstrate that the Obama
administration has attempted to make alliances with Islamists as a buffer against global
jihadism and a battering ram for destroying secular authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world
despised by many liberals and the left, despite their use as a bulwark against radical
political Islam. In three key cases of the so-called Arab Spring–Egypt, Libya, and
Syria–the Obama administration has supported the radical global Islamist organization,
the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The Egyptian case is well-known and will not be discussed
here.
The pro-MB policy has been a fundamental miscalculation for several reasons. First, it
assumed that democratic, moderately Islamic states led by the MB would follow secular
authoritarian regimes. Instead, as the short-lived MB regime in Egypt demonstrated, an Islamist
MB regime is no better and likely much worse than secular, even military-led regimes. The rise
of Islamist authoritarianism after the fall of secular regimes is even better demonstrated by
the upper hand that jihadist totalitarian groups have in the chaos of post-secular regimes
across those parts of the Muslim world thrown into chaos with the help of U.S. policy.
Second, it assumed an impermeable line between the global Islamist revolutionary movement,
led by groups such as the MB and Hizb ut-Tahrir Islami (HTI), and the global jihadi
revolutionary movement, led by the Islamic State or IS (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) and Al Qa`ida (AQ).
The former type of group is often a half-way house for radicalized Muslims heading towards the
path of jihad. Like their jihadi counterparts, the MB and other radical Islamist revolutionary
groups favor a global caliphate based on the rule of Shariah law. The difference lies in the
strategies and tactics for getting there. By backing the MB, the U.S. facilitated jihadi
agitation and propaganda, recruiting, and arms acquisition fueling the global jihadi
revolutionary movement.
Part 1: The Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood at Home
There is a logic President Obama's policy bias in favor of the MB. President Obama's
biographical and radical leftist background lends him a great pro-Muslim feeling that often
attains absurd proportions. After all, he spent many of his most formative childhood years in
Indonesia, went to a madrassah school there, and stated in his autobiography that the most
beautiful sound he ever heard is the Islamic azan or call to prayer. The president
apparently believes that Islam and Muslims have been an instrumental part of America since its
founding. In his 2009 Cairo speech, which the administration claimed sparked the MB-led
Egyptian revolution that overthrew Hosni Mubarak in September 2012, President Obama claimed to
"know" that "Islam has always been a part of America's story"
(www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09). In a 2010
speech marking the end of Ramadan, Obama asserted: "Islam has always been part of America"
(www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/11/statement-president-occasion-ramadan). In
February 2015 he stated: "Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its
founding" (
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-islam-has-been-woven-fabric-our-country-its-founding
). In short, President Obama has a bias in favor of Islam–indeed, a hyper-empathy that
goes over the line into fantasy. Given these realities, it might be expected that this
sentiment would be reflected in the American President's foreign policy. In fact, it is.
There is now a boat load of evidence that the Obama administration has brought in officials
and advisors from radical Muslim circles–in particular those from groups fronting for, or
tied to the MB–who espouse Islamist, anti-semitic, and anti-American points of view
similar to those MB proposes. Until Hillary Clinton's resignation as US Secretary of State, MB
links connected two high-ranking Obama administration officials: Clinton's chief of staff Huma
Abedin and current special assistant to the National Security Council Chief of Staff for the
military's Islamic chaplain program Mehdi K. Alhassani. The specific link is the Muslim World
League (MWL), indicted for financing Al Qa`ida (AQ) front groups. MWL successor groups have
been officially designated terrorist organizations by both the State Department and the United
Nations (Aaron Klein, "White House aide linked to al-Qaida funder," Counter Jihad Report
, 9 May 2014, http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/mehdi-k-alhassani/
).
A link between these two and MB is the Muslim Student Association (MSA) with branches in
hundreds of universities across America. The nationwide umbrella organization MSA has extensive
proven ties to the MB ("The Muslim Students Association and and the Jihadi Network," Terrorism
Awareness Project, 2008 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA%20and%20Jihad%20Network%20v5b-1.pdf
). The MSA's official anthem restates MB's credo:
Huma worked with Abdullah Omar Naseef on the editorial board of her father's Saudi-financed
think tank, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). Huma was there from 2002-2008,
and Naseef was there from December 2002 – December 2003. Naseef left the JMMA editorial
board at a time when various charities led by Naseef's MWL were declared illegal terrorism
fronts worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N. Naseef is still the MWL's secretary-general.
Huma's mother, Saleha, is the editor of the IMMA's Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA),
the publication of Syed's institute (
http://shoebat.com/2014/05/03/distribution-list-smoking-gun-benghazi-email-included-muslim-brotherhood-agent/
). Its latest issue (Vol. 35, Issue 4, 2015) features the lead article "Muslims in Western
Media: New Zealand Newspapers' Construction of 2006 Terror Plot at Heathrow Airport and
Beyond," a study of alleged Islamophobia, in which the institute specializes ( www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjmm20/current ).
Saleha Abedin is also a MWL representative.
The MWL and its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization
(IIRO) and Al Haramain, have been accused of having terrorist ties. Al Haramain was declared a
terror-financing front organization by the U.S. and U.N. with direct ties to Osama bin Laden
and banned both in the U.S. and worldwide. The Anti-Defamation League accuses the MWL of
proselytizing a "fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large
network of charities and affiliated organizations" and notes that "several of its affiliated
groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity." In 2003, U.S. News and
World Report documented "a blizzard of Wahhabist literature" accompanied MWL's donations (
http://shoebat.com/2014/05/03/distribution-list-smoking-gun-benghazi-email-included-muslim-brotherhood-agent/
).
Both Abedin and Alhassani were links in the Obama's administration's strategic
communications (propaganda) operation to pin the 11 September 2012 Bengazi attack that killed
the US ambassador to Libya and three CIA operatives on an Internet film instead of an AQ
affiliate's attack. In an email obtained under a Judicial Watch lawsuit sent to Alhassani and
other officials from Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser for strategic
communication sent an email to Alhassani and several other administration officials three days
after the three days after the Benghazi attack indicating the need to "underscore that these
protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." Another email
indicates that US Ambassador to the UN Susana Rice was prepped on the Saturday before her
Sunday tour of talk shows where she repeated the video story and other elements cantained in
the email's talking points (See p. 14 of the PDF of several documents at, http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
).
An Egyptian newspaper claimed in December 2012 that six Muslims in particular have direct
ties to the MB or are even MB members. Four are adiminstration officials or semi-officials, and
three of these deserve scrutiny: assistant secretary for policy development at the Homeland
Security Department (HSD) Arif Alikhan; HSD Advisory Council member Mohammed Elibiary; and U.S.
special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference Rashad Hussain ( www.investigativeproject.org/3608/dawud-walid-the-quran-and-jews
and Ahmed Shawki, "A man and 6 of the Brotherhood in the White House!," Rose El-Youssef, 22
December 2012,
www.rosa-magazine.com/News/3444/%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%84%D9%886-%D8%A5%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B6
). To be sure, the Egyptian article appears to be overstated in claiming these persons' MB
membership. The piece was likely part of a strategic communications operation carried out by
opponents of the MB regime that overthrew Mubarak and backed the post-MB Egyptian government of
General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi counter-revolution. Nevertheless, the Obama administration's
appointment of these officials or plenipotentiaries as well as several other Muslim-American
leaders -- in particular, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) president Imam Mohamed Magid
and and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) co-founder Salam al-Marayati -- is disturbing
given their indirect MB associations and MB-like Islamist political and theological views.
The biggest knock against DHS assistant secretary for policy development Arif Alikhan has
been the endorsement by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of his appointment.
CAIR has defended terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as liberation movements.
It also was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terrorism funding case, and several of
its former officials have been convicted of terrorism-related charges. A lesser rap is that
Alikhan attended a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) just days before his
appointment. MPAC has a similar history of defending Hamas (
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/07/new-dhs-official-linked-to-muslim-public-affairs-council-which-calls-hizballah-a-liberation-movement
). The Egyptian publication claimed that Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization
(WIO), which it characterizes as a Brotherhood "subsidiary" ( www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates#
). These indictments of Alikhan seem less than convincing as evidence of MB ties.
The funding for Elibiary's own community organizing activity has been shrouded in secrecy.
He is co-founder, president and CEO of the Freedom and Justice Foundation (FJF), founded in
November 2002 "to promote government relations and "interfaith community relations for the
organized Texas Muslim community." The IRS revoked the FJF's nonprofit status in May 2010 for
failure to file the requisite forms that would have revealed its source of funding. Moreover,
his FJF has never filed a Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report. He also has ties to
CAIR. The North Texas Islamic Council (NTIC) or Texas Islamic Council (TIC) is a FJF affiliate,
and Elibiary is a registered NTIV agent for the NTIC. One of the NTIC's directors is H.
Mustafaa Carroll, who is the executive director of CAIR's Houston chapter. Elibiary has
described the writings of Qutb, the chief ideologist of the MB and a major source for global
Islamist and jihadist revolutionaries alike, as having ""the potential for a strong spiritual
rebirth that's truly ecumenical allowing all faiths practiced in America to enrich us and
motivate us to serve God better by serving our fellow man more" ( www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/712.pdf
).
According to an investigation by the Washington Free Beacon, Elibiary was at the center of a
scandal involving the "inappropriate disclosure of sensitive law enforcement documents"
resulting from his access to DHS's secure HS-SLIC system, according to a DHS letter. The case
has been "shrouded in mystery, with various officials providing unclear and at times
contradictory answers about whether DHS ever properly investigated." The allegation was that
Elibiary "inappropriately accessed classified documents from a secure site and may have
attempted to pass them to reporters." As part of his role on the HSAC, Elibiary "was provided
access to a network containing sensitive but unclassified information," according to the July
2014 DHS letter U.S. congressman Louis Gohmert (Republican from Texas). DHS claimed that its
2011 investigation "found no credible information" that Elibiary "disclosed or sought to
disclose 'For Official Use Only' information to members of the media." Nor did DHS "find any
indication that he sought to disclose any other internal OHS [Office of Homeland Security]
information to anyone apart from official use of information within the scope of his role for
the Homeland Security Advisory Council," according to the letter states.
However, DHS's denials are contradicted by documents obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act by Judicial Watch, which indicate that there was never a proper investigation
into Elibiary's actions. In a September 2013 letter DHS informed Judicial Watch in fact that it
could not find investigation records connected to the matter. This conflicting information
suggests a cover up of the fact that there was no investigation, as congressman Gohmert notes,
and that Elibiary was let go from the HSAC to lock in the cover up. Terrorism expert Patrick
Poole concluded that any DHS investigation that might have occurred was "phony," since it
failed to contact him and his source, which led to the first public allegations of Elibiary's
misuse of documents. "(W)hen DHS couldn't provide a single email or document in response to the
Judicial Watch FOIA to prove this investigation ever took place, the jig was up," Poole noted (
http://freebeacon.com/issues/controversial-dhs-adviser-let-go-amid-allegations-of-cover-up/
; see also www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mohamed-elibiary-homeland-security/
).
President Obama's originally appointed Rashad Hussain as his special envoy to the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In February 2015 Hussain was promoted to the
position of director of the U.S. State Department's Center for Strategic Counterterrorism
Communications
(www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/02/26/obama-appoints-muslim-brotherhood-linked-muslim-to-head-center-for-strategic-counterterrorism-communications/).
Hussain previously served on Critical Islamic Reflections program organizing committee with the
founder of Zaytuna College, Imam Zaid Shakir ( http://www.yale.edu/cir/2004/about.html ).
Shakir's co-founder is Hamza Yusuf, who has said that jihadist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman,
convicted in the Al Qa`ida conspiracy to bomb New York landmarks in the 1990s, was tried
unjustly ( www.investigativeproject.org/2778/ipt-profiles-hamza-yusuf
).
Speaking at a MSA conference in 2004 Hussain condemned the U.S. Justice Department for
"politically motivated persecutions" in prosecuting the soon-to-be convicted terrorism
supporter Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida computer engineering professor. He also
called the legal process "sad commentary on our legal system," "a travesty of justice," and
"atrocious"
(www.politico.com/story/2010/02/islam-envoy-retreats-on-terror-talk-033210#ixzz0g5R9A5gl). One
wonders what legal system Hussain would prefer to the American system of justice. In 2006 the
good professor pleaded guilty to one count of "(c)onspiracy to make or receive contributions of
funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian jihadist organization,
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a U.S. State Department 'Specially Designated Terrorist
organization'" and was sentenced to 57 months in prison
(www.investigativeproject.org/profile/100/sami-al-arian). The judge in the case said there was
evidence that Al-Arian served on PIJ's governing board. Al-Arian successfully had lied about
his ties to the terrorist group for ten years. For his part, Hussain lied in 2006 about the
fact that he made the noted 2004 remarks condemning the Justice Department for 'persecutions',
only to be forced to admit he had lied after being subjected to media scrutiny in the wake of
his appointment. (www.investigativeproject.org/1809/how-are-these-not-considered-lies).
According to the watchdog group Global Mulsim Brotherhood Watch, Hussain has a long record of
attending MB-tied conferences, including a May 2009 conference organized by MB-tied groups like
the MSA
(www.globalmbwatch.com/2010/02/20/breaking-news-rashad-hussain-admits-making-controversial-comments-and-asking-for-deletion/).
In addition such to appointments, Obama administration grant-giving has rewarded radical
Muslims, including open anti-Semites. Director of the Michigan branch of MB front group CAIR,
Dawud Walid, has traveled abroad at least twice on U.S State Department funds, using a 2010
trip to Mali to criticize America's treatment of Muslims after 9/11. But it gets worse. In a 25
May 2012 sermon at the Islamic Organization of North America mosque in Warren, Michigan, Walid
asked rhetorically: "Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah?" Walid answered: "They are
the Jews, they are the Jews." He also has stated: "One of the greatest social ills facing
American today is Islamophobia, and anti-Muslim bigotry. And if you trace the organizations and
the main advocates and activists in Islamophobia in America, you will see that all those
organizations are pro-Israeli occupation organizations and activists." Walid's anti-American
bias is reflected in his view that the 2009 shooting death of a Detroit imam was unjust,
despite the imam's refusal of police orders to lay down his weapon and surrender and his fire
at police first ( www.investigativeproject.org/3608/dawud-walid-the-quran-and-jews
).
Obama's ties to Muslims with anti-American and radical leanings predate his election to the
presidency. The Obama campaign's Muslim outreach adviser Mazen Asbahi was forced to resign in
August 2008 after Wall Street Journal article unmasked his indirect radical and MB ties. In
2000, Asbahi served on the board of the Islamic investment fund Allied Assets Advisors Fund
(AAAF), a Delaware-registered trust. Asbahi also has been a frequent speaker before several
U.S.-based groups that scholars associate with the MB. AAAF is a subsidiary of the North
American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which receives funding from the government of Saudi Arabia and
holds the title to many U.S. mosques in the U.S. NAIT promotes fundamentalist Islam compatible
with both the ideology of MB and Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. Other AAAF board members at the time
included one Jamal Sayid, the imam at a fundamentalist mosque in Illinois the Bridgeview Mosque
in Bridgeview, Ill., outside Chicago. Sayid served on the AAAF board until 2005. The Justice
Department designated the imam an unindicted co-conspirator in a 2007 racketeering trial of
several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. Sayid has been identified as a
leading Hamas member in numerous news reports since 1993.
(www.wsj.com/articles/SB121797906741214995 and
http://www.globalmbwatch.com/2008/08/06/breaking-news-obama-advisor-resigns-after-wall-street-journal-report/
). Asbahi reportedly has connections to two other MB-linked organizations, the Institute For
Social Policy And Understanding and SA Consulting. One of the latter's three managers is Omer
Totonji, the apparent son of Iraqi-born U.S. Muslim Brotherhood founder Ahmed Totonji
(www.globalmbwatch.com/2008/08/01/breaking-news-obama-top-muslim-adviser-part-of-two-more-organizations-tied-to-us-muslim-brotherhood/).
The White House's 'go to' imam is Mahomed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA), to which Asbahi also has ties
(www.globalmbwatch.com/2008/08/01/breaking-news-obama-top-muslim-adviser-part-of-two-more-organizations-tied-to-us-muslim-brotherhood/).
Although Magid has been involved in outreach to Jews at the US Holocaust Museum and the gay
community, he has also awarded an American Muslim who has verbally attacked Jews on an Islamist
ideo-theological basis. Magid is often invited to attend administration speeches on US Middle
East policy at the State Department, has advised the FBI and the Justice Department to
criminalize defamation of Islam, and is a member of the Department of Homeland Security's
Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. He also advises other federal agencies. In 2012
Magid's ISNA organized a "Diversity Forum" at which Magid gave a diversity award to CAIR
Michigan branch director Dawud Walid, just weeks after Walid's sermon at the Islamic
Organization of America (IOA) mosque in Warren, Michigan, in which he claimed Jews had incurred
the wrath of Allah (www.investigativeproject.org/3608/dawud-walid-the-quran-and-jews and
https://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-shariah-czar-mohamed-magid-hands-diversity-award-to-jew-hater-dawud-walid
).
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) co-founder and director Salam al-Marayati is a frequent
White House visitor and administration consultant
(www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations.php). Marayati has said that Israel should have
been added to the "suspect list" for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks ( http://theblacksphere.net/2013/04/devout-muslims-in-key-positions-in-the-white-house/
). MPAC has stated Muslims should be "confronting a nation of cowards," speaking of the United
States in the words of former U.S. Attorney General (
www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations/ferguson-confronting-a-nation-of-cowards.php ).
Marayati's MPAC spokeswoman in 2007, one Edina Lekovic, was editor of Al-Talib: The Muslim
News Magazine at UCLA , for its July 1999 issue which praised Osama bin Laden as a
"glorious mujahed" and in 2007 lied on national television about it, for which she was later
fully exposed by Investigative Project director Stephen Emerson
(www.investigativeproject.org/293/ms-lekovica-dozen-printing-mistakes). By the early 2000s, if
not much during Ms Lekovic's years at UCLA, the UCLA MSA was engaged in Islamist and
anti-Semitic propaganda and agitation, including support for the publication
(www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA%20and%20Jihad%20Network%20v5b-1.pdf). CAIR was
affiliated with the university paper, with its southern California chapter's director sitting
on Al-Talib 's editorial board
(www.investigativeproject.org/271/mpac-cair-and-praising-osama-bin-laden). The UCLA MSA was
also intimately involved with the newspaper's publishing and protest activity attacking Jews
(www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA%20and%20Jihad%20Network%20v5b-1.pdf and www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/06/cairs-legal-tribulations
).
Given all of the above, it is certainly not unreasonable to suspect that President Obama's
Cairo speech was intended to lend support to the world's most powerful MB branch -- that in
Egypt. The Obama administration's warm support for Egypt's MB-led revolution and short-lived
regime and cold shoulder to Gen. Sisi's government is well-known and speaks for itself.
Part 2: The Obama Administration and the MB Abroad
Abroad, President Obama's sympathy for semi-Islamist, MB-like elements at home was soon
reflected in his foreign policy. In 2011 Obama issued a secret directive called Presidential
Study Directive-11, or PSD-11, which, according to the Washington Times, outlined a strategy
for backing the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East as a strategy for supporting reform
and blocking jihadism's advances in the region (
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/inside-the-ring-muslim-brotherhood-has-obamas-secr/
).
It appears to have been the foundation of the Obama administration's overall strategy in the
Middle East and North Africa and the war against jihadism. It would be evident in the
administration's policy failures in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Those failures would
influence U.S. relations with allies and competitors, especially the other major powers in the
region – Russia and Turkey – putting them on a collision course as they attempted a
region in free-fall collapse as a result, for the most part, of American policies.
Egypt
The Obama administration first encouraged the MB-led overthrow of Hosni Mubarak's secular
Arab nationalist regime in Egypt, and then openly supported the new MB 'democracy.' Thus, the
U.S. was backing the overthrow of the leader who had repressed the MB in the wake of the
assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in October 1981, in which the some MB members
were involved but not the main actors. Thus, President Obama invited MB leader and new Egyptian
President Mohamed Morsi to the White House, a strong endorsement from any U.S. president. After
President Obama's November 2012 meeting with the MB's now Egyptian President Morsi, Obama told
his aides that he "sensed an engineer's precision with surprisingly little ideology"
(www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/egypt-leader-and-obama-forge-link-in-gaza-deal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&src=un&feedurl=http:/json8.nytimes.com/pages/world/middleeast/index.jsonp&pagewanted=all&).
This was at a time when the Israeli incursion in Gaza was at its peak and Egyptian MB officials
were issuing the most harsh and sometimes jihadist and racist statements in relation to Israel
and Jews. Just days before Obama met with Morsi, the latter declared in Cairo's Al-Azhar
mosque: "The leaders of Egypt are enraged and are moving to prevent the aggression on the
people of Palestine in Gaza. We in Egypt stand with Gaza," he said. "[W]e are with them in one
trench, that he who hits them, hits us; that this blood which flows from their children, it, it
is like the blood flowing from the bodies of our children and our sons, may this never happen."
At the same time, the chairman of Morsi's Freedom and Justice Party, Saad Katatni was making
threats of jihad against Israel: "We are with you (Gaza) in your jihad. We have come here to
send a message from here to the Zionist entity, to the Zionist enemy. And we say to them, Egypt
is no longer. Egypt is no longer after the revolution a strategic treasure for you. Egypt was
and still is a strategic treasury for our brothers in Palestine; a strategic treasure for Gaza;
a strategic treasure for all the oppressed"
(www.investigativeproject.org/3827/obama-administration-oversells-morsi).
MB officials and its official website in fact issued a series of anti-Semitic and jihadi
calls. During one MB-organized protest at the time, preacher Muhammad Ragab called on Muslims
"to raise the banner of jihad against the tyrannical, invading and wicked sons of apes and pigs
[i.e., the Jews], and to unite against the enemies of Allah." MB website articles described
"Zionists" as "apes and pigs," "scum of the earth," "prophet murderers," or "infidels." For
example, MB General Guide Dr. Muhammad Badi issued various jihidist and anti-Semitic calls and
motifs, including a quote of the hadith of "the rocks and the trees" – a well-known
Islamic antisemitic motif–also found in Hamas's founding charter–according to which
the Muslims will fight and kill the Jews before the Day of Judgment. The MB also repeatedly
thanked God for the deaths of Israeli civilians during the killed by rockets
(www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6836.htm).
The Obama administration has never criticized the Egyptian MB or any other MB branch for
pro-Hamas and pro-jihad rhetoric whether from Morsi, Katatni, or their 'ikhwan' associates. In
addition, he nor any U.S. official ever threatened sanctions as the new MB regime allowed
Islamist elements to attack Coptic Christians, and he was reluctant to support the overthrow of
the MB regime and the return to power of the now military-backed Arab nationalist rule under
Gen. Sisi.
Indeed, when confronted by a journalist on the issue, then State Department spokeswoman and
architect of State's remarkably similarly failed Ukraine policy, Victoria Nuland responded:
"Well, I'm obviously not, from this podium, going to characterize the Egyptian view, nor am I
going to speak for them and characterize our private diplomatic conversations. We all agree on
the need to de-escalate this conflict, and the question is for everybody to use their influence
that they have to try to get there"
(www.investigativeproject.org/3827/obama-administration-oversells-morsi). This pro-MB policy
orientation was mirrored in the events in Libya and elsewhere that soon followed.
Libya
The administration then directly intervened to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi regime in
Libya–another country with a considerable MB presence–in violation of a UN
resolution limiting NATO action to establishing a no-fly zone backed by Russia by its
abstention in the UN Security Council vote. The overthrow of Qaddafi first led to minimal
change after elections and eventually anarchy and a civil war, which rages to this day. The
parliamentary elections of July 2012 saw National Transition Council president Mustafa Abdul
Jalil's party take the most votes, but Jalil represented limited change having been the
economic advisor of Qaddafi's son. The elections also provided an opening for the MB, which
finished in second place. But these elections failed in strengthening regime or consolidating
democracy, and the country soon melted down into civil war, with jihadi elements supplementing
the Islamist trend represented by the MB.
The Obama administration pattern of supporting MB and, unwittingly through it, jihadi
elements such as AQ first emerged in Libya in 2011. In the words of the Citizens' Commission on
Benghazi (CCB) -- founded in September 2013 and including among its members former US
Congressman Peter Hoekstra and numerous former CIA and military officers -- the Obama
administration "switched sides in the war on terrorism" ( www.aim.org/benghazi/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCB-Interim-Report-4-22-2014.pdf
). CCB member and former CIA officer Clare Lopez concludes that "the Qaddafi opposition was led
by the Muslim Brotherhood and the fighting militia was dominated by al-Qaida. That's who we
helped" ( http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/mustafa-abdul-jalil/
).
A December 2015 FOIA release of emails of then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show
that from the outset of protests in Libya the Obama administration was aware of AQ's presence
in the U.S. backed opposition and anti-Qaddafi rebels' war crimes and had sent special ops
trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of the protests, and concerned regarding oil access
for Western firms, Qaddafi's gold and silver reserves and his plans for a gold-backed currency
that might weaken Western currencies. Thus, Clinton's unofficial advisor and envoy to the
region, Sidney Blumenthal refers in one email to "an extremely sensitive source" who confirmed
that British, French, and Egyptian special ops forces were training the Libyan rebels along the
Egyptian-Libyan border and in Benghazi's suburbs within a month of the first ant-Qaddafi
protests which began in Benghazi in mid-February 2011. By March 27 what was repeatedly being
referred to as a popular revolt involved foreign agents "overseeing the transfer of weapons and
supplies to the rebels" of the National Libyan Council (NLC) opposition front, including "a
seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition." Blumenthal then notes that
"radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa'ida in the Islamic
Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command." Moreover, Blumenthal
reported to her that "one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily
execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting." The commander was using a
label–'foreign mercenaries'–used by opposition forces for the black Libyans favored
under his regime and apparently was not referring to the Western special forces training and
backing the rebels, whose atrocities of Libyan blacks were well-documented at the time by human
rights groups the U.S. government often cites. Furthermore, Blumenthal states that the stories
of Qaddafi's forces engaging in mass rape and his distributing Viagra to encourage them were
only rumors, and yet these rumors became a charge leveled officially by Clinton in a State
Department statement, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice at the UN itself, and numerous Western
officials and media. The claims were shown in July 2011 by Amnesty International to have been
very likely false and initiated by the rebels (
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
with links to original sources). The above-mentioned CCB investigation, based on interviews
with sources in U.S. intelligence agencies and the military, concludes that the U.S.
facilitated delivery of weapons and military support to Libyan rebels from the MB who were
linked to AQ, including the AQ cell that undertook the Bengazi consulate attack that killed
U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three CIA operatives.( www.aim.org/benghazi/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCB-Interim-Report-4-22-2014.pdf
).
A New York Times investigation confirms the interpretation supported by the recently
disclosed documents and CCB investigation. Secretary of State Clinton, whose ear Huma Abedin
had, provided the pivotal support convincing the president first to back a UN resolution on a
no-fly zone and disabling Qaddafi's command and control. Clinton also led the push inside the
administration to upgrade from that policy to one of pursuing a rebel victory and a strategy of
letting its allies supply weapons to the rebels and knowingly and willfully exceed the UN
resolution's legal writ. Almost immediately after the UN resolution's adoption and well before
Qadaffi was killed, the U.S. was providing assistance that went far beyond that necessary to
secure a no-fly zone. According to former CIA Director, General David Petraeus, the United
States was then already providing "a continuing supply of precision munitions, combat search
and, and surveillance." Throughout spring 2011, the Obama administration looked the other way
as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates supplied the rebels with lethal weapons, according to the
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others, and Clinton knew and was ostensibly "concerned that
Qatar, in particular, was sending arms only to militias from the city of Misurata and select
Islamist brigades." The State Department's Libya policy adviser Daniel Shapiro acknowledged to
the NYT that the goal no longer was enforcing a no-fly zone but "winning" and "winning quickly
enough," the latter goal perhaps connected with U.S. domestic politics and the presidential
election little more than a year away. US State Department's Policy Planning Director
Anne-Marie Slaughter confirmed in the NYT article that the U.S. "did not try to protect
civilians on Qaddafi's side" (Jo Becker and Scott Shane, "The Libya Gamble, Part 1: Hillary
Clinton's 'Soft Power' and a Dictator's Fall," New York Times , 27 February 2016,
www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?emc=edit_th_20160228&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=59962778&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report&_r=0).
Clinton was unusually interested–on "the activist side"–in having the U.S. take
part, if a clandestine part in the supply of weapons to "secular" Libyan rebels "to counter
Qatar" and the threat of lost influence. However, senior military officials, such as NATO's
supreme allied commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis and Obama's national security adviser Tom
Donilon warned that there were signs, "flickers." of Al Qaeda within the opposition and the
administration would not be able to ensure that weapons would not fall into Islamist
extremists's hands. This was a 'flicker' of the tragedies in Benghazi and Syria yet to
come(Becker and Scott Shane, "The Libya Gamble, Part 1: Hillary Clinton's 'Soft Power' and a
Dictator's Fall").
The CCB and the NYT also concluded that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had communicated to
the U.S. his willingness to resign and depart from Libya and that the U.S. facilitated the
delivery of arms to Libyan MB rebels tied to AQ in the person of its North African affiliate,
AQ in Maghreb or AQIM. Moreover, the investigation found that the U.S. ignored Libyan leader
Muammar Qaddafi's called for a truce and expressed a readiness to abdicate shortly after the
2011 Libyan revolt began but was ignored or rebuffed by U.S. officials leading to "extensive
loss of life (including four Americans), chaos, and detrimental outcomes for U.S. national
security objectives across the region" ( www.aim.org/benghazi/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCB-Interim-Report-4-22-2014.pdf
). There was another plan supported by State Department policy planning director Slaughter to
have Qaddafi step down in favor of one his sons, but this was also rejected by Clinton in favor
of supporting the rebels to victory and violating international law established by the UN
resolution (Becker and Scott Shane, "The Libya Gamble, Part 1: Hillary Clinton's 'Soft Power'
and a Dictator's Fall").
The CCB's broader conclusions about the Islamist revolution in U.S. counter-jihadism policy
is backed up by revelations from other newly disclosed documents regarding the debacle in
Syria. The Obama administration's MB policy in Libya–which was already getting out of
control and would turn Libya into a failed state, a jihadi and in particular IS stronghold, and
a main source of Europe's refugee deluge–would be applied to Syria as well with even more
disastrous results. Documents show that the U.S. administration was well aware that no later
than October 2012 weapons of the formerly Qaddafi-led Lybian army were being sent from Libyan
MB and AQ rebels to the increasingly jhadist-dominated Syrian opposition.
Obama, the MB, and Jihadists in Syria
When the Syrian revolt began in Daraa on March 18, 2011, the Syrian MB only existed abroad,
having been exiled by Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father and predecessor. However, its support
abroad translated into strength in the original opposition alliance, the Syrian National
Council (Oct. 2, 2011-Nov. 11, 2012) or SNC, backed and 'weaponized,' literally speaking, by
the West, Turkey, and the Arabs. Turkey and Qatar sponsored the Syrian MB's strong
representation on the SNC, though traditionally different Syrian MB factions have had ties in
Saudi Arabia and Iraq as well and more radical Salafists were stronger at home in 2011-2013 in
contrast to the MB's dominance in Syria from 1979-1982
(www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/01/syria-muslim-brotherhood-past-present.html#). At a
conference hosted by Turkey in Istanbul in October 2011, the Syrian MB became a co-founder of
the SNC, which it came to dominate politically if not numerically ( http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=48370
). Exiled Syrian MB members comprise a quarter of the SNC's 310 members, and the MB constitutes
the most cohesive, well-organized and influential bloc within the SNC. Moreover, another
Islamist group within the SNC, the 'Group of 74' consists of former MB members ( http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=48370
; http://carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=48334
; and www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/more-divisions-among-syrian-opposition
).
The MB is far more clever and deceptive than some other Islamist and all jihadist groups. It
attempts to portray a moderate face and join alliances that function as fronts for its activity
and vehicles for its rise to power. Thus, the SNC platform professed the goal of creating a
full-fledged democracy, with full individual and groups rights and freedoms, elections, and the
separation of powers ( http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=48370
). It also allowed more moderate SNC leaders to assume the mantle of leadership to present a
moderate face to foreign sponsors. This is openly acknowledged by MB leaders in the SNC. Former
Muslim Brotherhood leader Ali Sadr el-Din Bayanouni, the SNC's fourth most powerful leader,
stated that SNC Chairman Burhan Ghalioun was chosen because he "is accepted in the West and at
home and, to prevent the regime from capitalizing on the presence of an Islamist at the top of
the SNC" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk6KTU1zoTE
). In 2012 liberal members began resigning from the council precisely because they saw it
functioning as a liberal front for the MB ( http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/14/200546.html
). One of the SNC's few secular members claimed in February 2012 that more than half of the
council consisted of Islamists ( http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-opposition-idUKTRE81G0VM20120217
).
The SNC joined the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces when the
coalition was founded in November 2012 but withdrew from it in January 2014 when the latter
agreed to enter into talks on a ceasefire and peaceful transition sponsored by the West and
Russia in Geneva. By then both the council and the coalition had been long overtaken by the
Al-Qa`ida-tied Jabhat al-Nusrah and other such groups as well as by the Islamic State (IS). The
National Council is also heavily influenced by the MB. Its first president (November 2012-April
2103), Moaz al-Khatib, was the former imam of the historical Sunni Umayyad Mosque, a converted
Christian church which houses the remains of St. John the Baptist and is situated in the heart
of old Damascus. One of his two vice presidents was Suheir Atassi, ostensibly a secularist, and
Khatib has at times promised equal rights for Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Christians and Kurds
alike, prompting optimism in the West at the time that he could be a strong counter to the
growing jihadization of the Free Syria Army (FSA). However, Katib is a MB sympathizer if not
clandestine operative, a declared follower of the MB's chief theologian Yusuf al-Qardawi, whom
he calls "our great imam." In accordance with Islamist taqqiya -- the right to lie to
non-Muslims in order to further the Islamic cause -- when communicating in Arabic, Katib's
statements become more radical. He has supported the establishment of a Shariah-law based
stated and his Darbuna.net website has included articles, including some of his own,
which express anti-Semitic, anti-Western, and anti-Shia views ( http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/14/islamist-in-chief/
). Moreover, Katib has demonstrated just how much the differences between Islamist groups such
as the MB and jihadists groups like AQ and IS are differences over strategy and tactics, not
the goal of restoring the caliphate and globalizing radical Islamic influence if not rule. He
has also called on the U.S. to reconsider its 2012 decision to declare the AQ-allied Jabhat
al-Nusrah as a terrorist organization, refusing to denounce JN and emphasizing its value as an
ally in the struggle against the Assad regime
(www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/1212/For-newly-recognized-Syrian-rebel-coalition-a-first-dispute-with-US-video
and http://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/assad-opposition-094/
).
It is important to remember that the dividing lines between secular and Islamist groups such
as the MB and even moreso those between Islamist groups like the MB and jihadi groups like AQ
and IS on the ground in Syria are fluid and porous. The events in Libya demonstrated the
dangers of these intersections, and now failed results would be repeated inside the Syria
opposition with support for 'moderates' and Islamists leading to support for jihadists.
Recently disclosed U.S. government documents reveal the extent to which -- already by at
least mid-2012 -- the Obama administration along with its European and Sunni allies were
supplying financial, weapons, and training support to the SNC in its efforts to overthrow the
Baathist and Alawite-led regime of Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, the documents show that the
weapons were not only going to the MB-dominated SNC but also to the Al Qa`ida (AQ) Iraqi
affiliate, the forerunner to ISIS. In fact, an August 2012 Defense Department/Defense
Information Agency (DIA) document, which would have been based on data from the preceding
months up to a year before mid-2012, emphasized that Salafists, in particular MB and AQ's
affiliate in Iraq 'Al Qaida in Iraq' or AQI already dominated the Syrian opposition forces. The
same document undermines the neo-con argument that if the U.S. had intervened in Syria early
on– say, in 2011 -- there would have been little opportunity for jihadi groups like AQI
and IS to dominate the forces fighting the Assad regime. But already in early 2012 if not
sooner, elements from AQ's group in the region, AQI, immediately moved from Iraq to back the
opposition in Syria, AQI already had been present in Syria for years as part of its operations
in Iraq. Moreover, its strongholds were in the eastern regions of Iraq, and the religious and
tribal leaders there came out strongly in support for the opposition to Syria's secular regime
(
www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
). Therefore, AQI would have had no trouble recruiting for the fight against Assad regardless
of Western actions. One needs only recall the already existing AQI presence and the open desert
terrain and porous border between western Iraq and eastern Syria.
One DoD/DIA document states that weapons were being sent from the port of Bengazi, Libya to
the ports of Banias and Borj Islam in Syria beginning from October 2011–that is, before
the SNC was even founded, meaning Western support actually began quite early on
(www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-1-3-2-3-from-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812/). The
document is heavily redacted (blacked out) and does not indicate who organized the weapons
shipments. However, the detailed knowledge of the reasons why specific ports were selected and
specific ships used suggests that U.S. intelligence, likely the CIA, organized the shipments.
The document states: " The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic
transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able
to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo " ( www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-1-3-2-3-from-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812/
). This shows that U.S. intelligence was already on the ground before October 2011. Moreover,
this demonstrates that early Western actions in the form of supplying weapons especially, only
strengthened AQI's recruitment and development potential both in Iraq and Syria, helping to
produce the Islamic State. I include extended excerpts from the most relevant newly released
documents at the end of this article. One document warned of "dire consequences," most of which
are blacked out, but one potential consequence is not redacted: the "renewing facilitation of
terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena" (
www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
).
The interpretation that the Obama administration intentionally or unintentionally aided and
abetted AQ and the rise of its successor organization ISIS (IS) is supported by the U.S.
administration's second-ranking official. On 2 October 2015 U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden
let the cat out of the big when he was asked the question–"In retrospect do you believe
the United States should have acted earlier in Syria, and if not why is now the right
moment?"– at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Biden
answered:
The answer is 'no' for 2 reasons. One, the idea of identifying a moderate middle has been
a chase America has been engaged in for a long time. We Americans think in every country in
transition there is a Thomas Jefferson hiding beside some rock – or a James Madison
beyond one sand dune. The fact of the matter is the ability to identify a moderate middle in
Syria was – there was no moderate middle because the moderate middle are made up of
shopkeepers, not soldiers – they are made up of people who in fact have ordinary elements
of the middle class of that country. And what happened was – and history will record this
because I'm finding that former administration officials, as soon as they leave write books
which I think is inappropriate, but anyway, (laughs) no I'm serious – I do think it's
inappropriate at least , you know, give the guy a chance to get out of office. And what my
constant cry was that our biggest problem is our allies – our allies in the region were
our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends – and I have the greatest
relationship with Erdogan, which I just spent a lot of time with – the Saudis, the
Emiratis, etc. What were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially
have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and
tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the
people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis
coming from other parts of the world . Now you think I'm exaggerating – take a look.
Where did all of this go? So now what's happening? All of a sudden everybody's awakened because
this outfit called ISIL which was Al Qaeda in Iraq, which when they were essentially thrown out
of Iraq, found open space in territory in eastern Syria, work with Al Nusra who we declared a
terrorist group early on and we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them. So
what happened? Now all of a sudden – I don't want to be too facetious – but they
had seen the Lord. Now we have – the President's been able to put together a coalition of
our Sunni neighbors ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrXkm4FImvc&feature=youtu.be&t=1h31m57s
).
This illegal activity is at least one if not the main reason behind the Obama
administration's deception of the American people regarding the murder of US ambassador to
Libya Christopher Stevens and three CIA agents in September 2012 in Benghazi. Indeed, the
above-mentioned document and other recently released DoD documents confirm that within hours of
the attack, the entire US government, including those who were at the forefront in claiming the
incident was a political demonstration that took place in reaction to a film denigrating
Islam–President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and US National
Security advisor (then US rep to the UN) Susan Rice–was in fact a carefully planned
terrorist attack carried out by an AQ affiliate in Libya and facilitated by the U.S.
president's favorite Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was also dominant
within the 'moderate' wing of the Syrian opposition and Free Syrian Army. Indeed, the recent
congressional hearings into the Benghazi terrorist attack demonstrated that within a day of the
attack Clinton told her daughter and the Egyptian ambassador to the US that it was a terrorist
attack carried out by a AQ affiliate as described in the document not by a 'demonstration'
protesting film as she told the American people and the relatives of the the CIA agents killed
in the attack.
At the same time, the military and intelligence communities are in virtual mutiny over the
Obama administration's failure to recognize the growing IS and overall jihadi threat and the
risk of growing that threat by continuing the failed MB and other policies the administration
pursues in the MENA region. The military's policy revolt underscores the fact and gravity of
the policy to supply weapons to Syria's MB- and eventually jihadist-infested 'moderate'
opposition to the Assad regime. In a January 2016 London Review of Books article, investigative
journalist Seymour M. Hersh uncovered major dissent and opposition within the Pentagon's Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) over Obama's policy of supplying weapons to MB elements in Syria. Hersh
found: "Barack Obama's repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and
that there are 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him" – has in recent
years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers
on the Pentagon's Joint Staff. Moreover, the Pentagon critics' opposition centered on the
administration's unwarranted "fixation on Assad's primary ally, Vladimir Putin." Another less
likely accurate aspect of their critique holds that "Obama is captive to Cold War thinking
about Russia and China, and hasn't adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries
share Washington's anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington,
they believe that Islamic State must be stopped" ( www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
).
In my view, Obama is captive to anything but 'Cold War thinking.' Rather, he is willing
prisoner of his excessive sympathy for Islam, to his MB strategy, and to his perhaps/perhaps
not unconscious association of Putin with the dreaded Republican and conservative white male so
detested by the Democratic Party and American left from which the president hails. That
association has been unintentionally reinforced by Putin's attempt to wear the mantle of
defender of traditional values, Christianity and, as strange as it may seem to come, Western
civilization. However, Hersh's other findings are well-taken.
According to Hersh, the top brass's resistance began in summer of 2013–more than a
year since the CIA, the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar began to ship guns and goods from Libya via
Turkey and sea to Syria for Assad's toppling. A joint JCS-DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)
"highly classified," "all-source" intelligence estimate foresaw that the Assad regime's fall
would bring chaos and very possibly Syria's takeover by jihadists was occurring in much of
Libya. Hersh's source, a former JCS senior adviser, said the report "took a dim view of the
Obama administration's insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel
groups." The assessment designated Turkey a "major impediment" to the policy since Ankara had
"co-opted" the "covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad,"
which "had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of
the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State." Moderates had "evaporated" and
the Free Syrian Army was "a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey." The estimate
concluded, according to Hersh and his source, that "there was no viable 'moderate' opposition
to Assad, and the US was arming extremists" ( www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
).
DIA Director (2012-14) Lieutenant General Michael Flynn confirmed that his agency had sent a
steady stream of warnings to the "civilian leadership" about the "dire consequences of toppling
Assad" and the jihadists' control of the opposition. Turkey was not working hard enough to stem
the flow of foreign fighters and weapons across its border and "was looking the other way when
it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria," Flynn says. "If the American public
saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go
ballistic" Flynn told Hersh. But the DIA's analysis, he says, "got enormous pushback" from the
Obama administration: "I felt that they did not want to hear the truth." Hersh's former JCS
adviser concurred, saying: "Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and
actually having a negative impact." "The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be
replaced by fundamentalists. The administration's policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad
to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say
Assad's got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better.
It's the 'anybody else is better' issue that the JCS had with Obama's policy" ( www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
).
In September 2015 more than 50 intelligence analysts at the U.S. military's Central Command
lodged a formal complaint that their reports on IS and AQ affiliate 'Jabhat al-Nusrah' or
JN–some of which were briefed to the president–were being altered inappropriately
by senior Pentagon officials. In some cases, "key elements of intelligence reports were
removed" in order to alter their thrust. The CENTCOMM analysts' complaint was sent in July to
the Defense Department and sparked a DoD inspector general's investigation
(www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html).
This was likely done in response to explicit requests or at least implicit signaling coming
from White House officials on what and what is not politically correct in the president's mind.
Thus, the analysts' complaint alleges that the reports were altered to depict the jihadi groups
as weaker than analysts had assessed in an attempt by CENTCOM officials to adhere to the Obama
administration's line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and JN
(www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html).
This would correlate with the motive behind the Bengazi coverup as well, as the terrorist
attack occurred at the peak of the 2012 presidential campaign when the president was stumping
on slogans that he had destroyed AQ.
Perhaps in response to the growing tensions, President Obama threw the intelligence agencies
under the bus in September 2014 days after the US authorized itself to begin bombing Syria. He
claimed that it was the intelligence agencies who "underestimated what was taking place in
Syria" – a euphemism for the growing power of IS. He did this in August
(www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/09/statement-president-iraq) and again in
September ( http://thehill.com/policy/defense/219123-obama-intel-underestimated-isis
and http://time.com/3442254/obama-u-s-intelligence-isis/
). In turn, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has begun an investigation
and hearings on the intel redactions
(www.nationalreview.com/article/424000/house-investigates-alleged-doctoring-isis-intel-joel-gehrke),
and Obama's former DIA chief, General Michael Flynn, has urged that the investigation begin "at
the top" (
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/24/former-obama-dia-chief-intel-probe-should-focus-on-white-house/
and http://thehill.com/policy/defense/219123-obama-intel-underestimated-isis ).
But matters in the Obama administration are even worse. After illegally running guns to AQ
and then IS and thereby strengthening history's greatest terrorist threat emanating from a
non-state actor, the administration facilitated IS's financing by failing to bomb both the
IS-controlled oil wells and the hundred-long truck convoys that transported the oil to market
across the open desert in open daylight. Although in October 2014 a U.S. State Department,
deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Julieta Valls Noyes, claimed the
sale of IS fuel was one of the US's "principal concerns" and air strikes against them were "a
viable option", nothing was ever done
(www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-on-isis-us-planning-to-bomb-oil-pipelines-to-halt-jihadists-funding-9813980.html).
According to former Obama administration CIA director Mike Morell's statement on November 24th,
the administration refused to bomb oil wells which IS took control of because of the potential
environmental damage (
www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/25/obamas-former-cia-director-reveals-real-reason-admin-declined-to-hit-islamic-state-oil-wells/
).
One reason claimed for not attacking the truck convoys was that the drivers of the trucks
ferrying oil from Mosul, Iraq to the Turkish border for sale–more about NATO member
Turkey's role below–were not IS members but rather civilians. Only after Russia's
military intervention and bombing of the IS oil convoys, along with France's doing the same
after the November 13th Paris attacks, did the U.S. carry out its first sorties against the IS
oil convoys on 17 November 2015. In advance of the first U.S. attack on the convoys, U.S.
forces dropped leaflets warning the truck drivers (and any mujahedin accompanying them) of the
impending raid (
www.wsj.com/articles/french-airstrikes-in-syria-may-have-missed-islamic-state-1447685772 ).
It remains unclear how the U.S. knew the drivers were not IS members, whether this is in fact
true, whether this necessarily exonerates them, and whether it is possible to defeat an
extremist insurgency under such legal structures.
However, the perfidy of Obama's MB policy was far greater than simply the usual political
correctness and naivete`of the president and his milieu or the resulting policy failures in
Egypt, Libya Syria and Iraq. By looking the other way and even facilitating the flow of weapons
to rebels, the Obama administration was flirting with violating U.S. anti-terrorism laws. The
administration persisted in funneling arms to MB and other 'moderate' elements, when it was
obvious to any moderately informed analyst that it would be impossible to control the flow of
weapons in the murky circles and dark networks essence of frequently intersecting Islamist and
jihadist organizations.
The administration's main partner in this gambit–NATO member Turkey–would raise
similar and even more troubling issues.
Part 3: Obama's America, Erdogan's Turkey and the 'War Against' Jihadism in Syria and
Iraq is forthcoming later in March .
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and security apparatus organized into regional commands that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy. ..."
"... The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization. ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
"... Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness. ..."
"... The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy. And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America, $17.5 billion is set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace. ..."
"... To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United
States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the
name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that
300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then
called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite
decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for
presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any
other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's
military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as
though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as
aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it
frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect
a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the
details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
I suppose that once in a while vital documentation (Apollo Moon missions, anyone?) goes
astray, slipping down the back of the couch or misfiled on the wrong shelf in the library
annexe. And occasionally the dog really did eat the homework.
Cretins like Steele openly flout the law, and are let away with it. There must be a law that
directs government personnel – and he was government – to take such steps as are
reasonable to preserve records they know or should know would constitute evidence, whether
condemnatory or exculpatory. Steele had to be well aware there was intense interest in this
material, and it is not difficult to imagine what the western reaction would be if some
pivotal Russian figure deleted all his records and then did the smiling palms-up thing in
court, so sorry, all gone.
It is likewise easy to imagine the information in the records was damning, because nobody
willfully wipes evidence they know will put them in the clear. And he will be allowed to get
away with it without any punishment because the people who would have to punish him are
likely the same people who told him to get rid of it.
Just like Hillary, and her self-appointed deletion of tens of thousands of emails she
deemed 'personal', although they were government property. No ordinary mook would be allowed
to get away with that. And they wonder – or pretend to – why the people are sick
to death of western corruption.
FBI memos show case was to be closed with a defensive briefing before a second interview
with Flynn was sought.
Evidence withheld for years from Michael Flynn's defense team shows the FBI found "no
derogatory" Russia evidence against the former Trump National Security Adviser and that
counterintelligence agents had recommended closing down the case with a defensive briefing
before the bureau's leadership intervened in January 2017
In the text messages to his team, Strzok specifically cited "the 7th floor" of FBI
headquarters, where then-Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCane worked,
as the reason he intervened.
"Hey if you haven't closed RAZOR, don't do so yet," Strzok texted on Jan. 4,
2017
####
JFC.
Remember kids, the United States is a well oiled machine that dispenses justice equitably
along with free orange juce to the tune of 'One Nation Under a Groove.'
So, I think Mark asked about 'legal action', but as you can see Barr and others are going
through this stuff with a fine tooth comb so it is as solid when it goes public. More
importantly, it can be used as evidenec to reform such corruption and put some proper
controls in place to stop it happening again at least for a few years
And meanwhile everybody who thinks they might be in the line of fire at some future moment is
destroying evidence as fast as they can make it unfindable.
"... Comey later publicly took credit when he had told an audience that he decided he could "get away" with sending "a couple guys over" to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case. ..."
"... In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general ..."
"... Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt. ..."
Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling
blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but
sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.
These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of
those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen
a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the
fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a "deep state" conspiracy.
One note reflects discussions within the FBI shortly after the 2016 election on how to
entrap Flynn in an interview concerning his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. According to Fox News, the note was written by the former FBI head of
counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, after a meeting with Comey and his deputy director, Andrew
McCabe.
The note states, "What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can
prosecute him or get him fired?" This may have expressed an honest question over the motivation
behind this targeting of Flynn, a decision for which Comey later publicly took credit when
he had told an audience that he decided he could "get away" with sending "a couple guys over"
to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case.
The new documents also explore how the Justice Department could get Flynn to admit breaking
the Logan Act, a law that dates back to from 1799 which makes it a crime for a citizen to
intervene in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used
to convict a citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.
In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing
illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd,
although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it.
Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant
general .
Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the
email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law
that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an
easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national
security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the
legal version of a canned trophy hunt.
It is also disturbing that this evidence was only recently disclosed by the Justice
Department. When Flynn was pressured to plead guilty to a single count of lying to
investigators, he was unaware such evidence existed and that the federal investigators who had
interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he
denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his
team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially
then threatened to charge his son.
Flynn never denied the conversation and knew the FBI had a transcript of it. Indeed,
President Trump publicly
discussed a desire to reframe Russian relations and renegotiate such areas of tensions. But
Flynn still ultimately pleaded guilty to the single false statement to federal investigators.
This additional information magnifies the doubts over the case.
Various FBI officials also lied and acted in arguably criminal or unethical ways, but all
escaped without charges. McCabe had a supervisory role in the Flynn prosecution. He was then
later found by the Justice Department inspector general to have repeatedly lied to
investigators. While his case was referred for criminal charges, McCabe was fired but never
charged. Strzok was also fired for his misconduct in the investigation.
Comey intentionally leaked FBI material, including potentially classified information but
was never charged. Another FBI agent responsible for the secret warrants used for the Russia
investigation had falsified evidence to maintain the investigation. He is still not indicted.
The disconnect of these cases with the treatment of Flynn is galling and grotesque.
Even the judge in the case has added to this disturbing record. As Flynn appeared before
District Judge Emmet Sullivan for sentencing, Sullivan launched into him and said he could be
charged with treason and with working as an unregistered agent on behalf of Turkey. Pointing to
a flag behind him, Sullivan declared to Flynn, "You were an unregistered agent of a foreign
country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States.
That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country
out."
Flynn was never charged with treason or with being a foreign agent. But when Sullivan
menacingly asked if he wanted a sentence then and there, Flynn wisely passed. It is a record
that truly shocks the conscience. While rare, it is still possible for the district court to
right this wrong since Flynn has not been sentenced. The Justice Department can invite the
court to use its inherent supervisory authority to right a wrong of its own making. As the
Supreme Court made clear in 1932, "universal sense of justice" is a stake in such cases. It is
the "duty of the court to stop the prosecution in the interest of the government itself to
protect it from the illegal conduct of its officers and to preserve the purity of its
courts."
Flynn was a useful tool for everyone and everything but justice. Mueller had ignored the
view of the investigators and coerced Flynn to plead to a crime he did not commit to gain
damaging testimony against Trump and his associates that Flynn did not have. The media covered
Flynn to report the flawed theory of Russia collusion and to foster the view that some sort of
criminal conspiracy was being uncovered by Mueller. Even the federal judge used Flynn to rail
against what he saw as a treasonous plot. What is left in the wake of the prosecution is an
utter travesty of justice.
Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution. But whatever the "goal" may have been in
setting up Flynn, justice was not one of them.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington
University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley . - "
Source "
In a dramatic new turn of events, the legal team for Flynn, President
Trump's former national security advisor, says the Department of Justice has turned over exculpatory
evidence in his case. Flynn is defending against charges he lied to FBI agents in the course of their
investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
At a minimum, this information, which includes evidence that US government prosecutors illegally
coerced a guilty plea by threatening Flynn's son with prosecution, warrants the withdrawal of that
guilty plea. Whether or not the judge in the case, US District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan, will
dismiss the entire case against Flynn on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct is yet to be seen.
One fact, however, emerges from this sordid affair: the FBI, lauded by its supporters as the world's
"premier law enforcement agency,"
is anything but.
Evidence of FBI misconduct during its investigation into alleged collusion between members of the
Trump campaign team and the Russian government in the months leading up to the presidential election
has been mounting for some time. From mischaracterizing information provided by former British MI6
officer Christopher Steele in order to manufacture a case against then-candidate Trump, to committing
fraud against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize wiretaps on former low-level
Trump advisor Carter Page, the FBI has a record of corruption that would make a third-world dictator
envious.
The crimes committed under the aegis of the FBI are not the actions of rogue agents, but rather
part and parcel of a systemic effort managed from the very top – both former Director James Comey and
current Director Christopher Wray are implicated in facilitating this criminal conduct. Moreover, it
was carried out in collaboration with elements within the Department of Justice, and with the
assistance of national security officials working for the Obama administration, making for a
conspiracy that would rival any investigation conducted by the FBI under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The heart of the case against Michael Flynn – a flamboyant, decorated combat veteran, with 33 years
of honorable service in the US Army – revolves around a phone call he made to the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29, 2016. That was the same day then-President Obama
ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US on charges of espionage. The conversation
was intercepted by the National Security Agency as part of its routine monitoring of Russian
communications. Normally, the identities of US citizens caught up in such surveillance are
"masked,"
or hidden, so as to preserve their constitutional rights. However, in certain instances
deemed critical to national security, the identity can be
"unmasked"
to help further an
investigation, using
"minimization"
standards designed to protect the identities and privacy
of US citizens.
In Flynn's case, these
"minimization"
standards were thrown out the window: on January 12,
2017, and again on February 9, the Washington Post published articles that detailed Flynn's phone call
with Kislyak. US Attorney John Durham, tasked by Attorney General William P Barr to lead a review of
the actions taken by law enforcement and intelligence officials as part of the Russian collusion
scandal, is currently investigating the potential leaking of classified information by Obama-era
officials in relation to these articles.
Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was the central topic of interest when a pair of FBI agents, led by
Peter Strzok, met with Flynn in his White House office on January 24, 2017. This meeting later served
as the source of the charge levied against him for lying to a federal agent. It also provided grist
for then acting-Attorney General Sally Yates to travel to the White House on January 26 to warn
then-White House Counsel Michael McGahn that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his
conversations with Kislyak, and, as such, was in danger of being compromised by the Russians.
That Flynn lied, or otherwise misrepresented, his conversation with Kislyak to Pence is not in
dispute; indeed, it was this act that prompted President Trump to fire Flynn in the first place. But
lying to the Vice President, while wrong, is not a crime. Lying to FBI agents, however, is. And yet
the available evidence suggests that not only did Flynn not lie to Strzok and his partner when
interviewed on January 24, but that the FBI later doctored its report of the interview, known in FBI
parlance as a
"302 report,"
to show that Flynn had. Internal FBI documents and official
testimony clearly show that a 302 report on Strzok's conversation with Flynn was prepared
contemporaneously, and that he had shown no indication of deception. However, in the criminal case
prepared against him by the Department of Justice, a 302 report dated August 22, 2017 – over seven
months after the interview – was cited as the evidence underpinning the charge of lying to a federal
agent.
The evidence of a doctored 302 report, when combined with the evidence that the US prosecutor
conspired with Flynn's former legal counsel to
"keep secret"
the details of his plea
agreement, in violation of so-called Giglio requirements (named after the legal precedent set in
Giglio v. United States which holds that the failure to disclose immunity deals to co-conspirators
constitutes a violation of due-process rights), constitutes a clear-cut case of FBI malfeasance and
prosecutorial misconduct. Under normal circumstances, that should warrant the dismissal of the
government's case against Flynn.
Whether Judge Emmet G Sullivan will agree to a dismissal, or, if not, whether the Department of
Justice would seek to retry Flynn, are not known at this time. What is known, however, is the level of
corruption that exists within the FBI and elements of the Department of Justice, regarding their
prosecution of a US citizen for purely political motive. Notions of integrity and fealty to the rule
of law that underpin the opinions of many Americans when it comes to these two institutions have been
shredded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law is meaningless when the FBI targets you. If
this could happen to a man with Michael Flynn's stature and reputation, it can happen to anyone.
Oh, there are the customary snide asides to the effect that the Russian 'doctors' are
actually all military-intelligence spies, but this report seems to shift the blame for that
to La Stampa, and points out through the Italian staff that the equipment Russia supplied is
both useful and of excellent quality and effectiveness. Responses to questions by the Russian
medical staff who are interviewed are not portrayed as the most hilarious lies you ever
heard, as they usually are.
I'm not foolish enough to think it signals a change in policy, but it is refreshing
nonetheless.
The article was written by local Bergamo freelance writer, Anna Bonalume. She seems to be a
recent recruit as she has just one other article at The Fraudian.
Lo and behold, the article suggests that Bergamischi self-reliance, enterprise, hard-nosed
pragmatism, a strong work ethic and tendency to get going when the going gets tough might
have doomed the city, when the natives should have done was to call for an immediate lockdown
and then shutter all their businesses, batten down the hatches and wait for government
largesse (if any) to flow through the streets.
Nothing in the article about how air pollution levels
in the city – Bergamo is in that province (Lombardia) of northern Italy which is
notorious for registering some of the highest air pollution levels in Europe, second or equal
to parts of southern Poland where coal production is still dominant – together with the
unique physical geography of the province (most cities in Lombardia are located in or near a
river valley at the foot of the Alps: a perfect environment for annual thermal inversions in
which cold air containing air pollutants sits under warm air so everyone keeps breathing
polluted air) might have set a context in which COVID-19 or indeed any other major illness
transmitted through respiratory and/or tactile channels could proliferate with devastating
effects on the most vulnerable groups in society.
" Jonathan Reid, a Bristol University professor researching airborne transmission of
coronavirus, told The Guardian, "It is perhaps not surprising that while suspended in air,
the small droplets could combine with background urban particles and be carried around."
"
Looks like The Fraudian still has to get that information about air pollution particles
carrying droplets of coronavirus out to Bonalume.
Uncle Volodya says, "Ignorance is always correctable.
But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?"
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of
anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by
the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
―
Issac Asimov
There's a prejudice against making fun of the mad that spans all cultures, all ethnicities; mock the mentally ill
at your peril, for some fair-minded citizen will surely intervene. Possibly many, enough to make you take to your
heels, because those who were born without the ability to reason, or had it and lost it, are perhaps God's most
innocent children. There are few compensations for being born half-a-bubble off plumb, but one of them is
anti-mockery armor. Having a laugh at the expense of the lunatic is bad form; something only dicks do, because it's
cheap and easy.
That's what must be preventing Dmitry Rogozin from roaring with laughter; from falling helplessly to his knees and
collapsing, wheezing, onto his side. If someone smart says something stupid, they are fair game. But laughing when
someone whose openly-stated beliefs suggest they are suffering from dementia is inappropriate. His dilemma is both
obvious, and acute – what to do?
First, some background; who is Dmitry Rogozin? A former Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the Russian
Federation's defense industries, he also served as his country's Ambassador to NATO. He has degrees in philosophy and
technology, and currently serves as the Russian Federation's Special Representative on Missile Defense. He is also
the Director of Roscosmos, the Russian state's Space Industry. Some have talked him up as a possible replacement for
Vladimir Putin, as President of the Russian Federation, but it is in his latter capacity, head of Roscosmos, that we
are most interested today. He knows more about rockets than that they are pointy at one end and have fire at the
other, if you get my drift.
A bit more background, and then I promise we can begin to tie things together; I think I can also promise you are
going to laugh. Not because you're a dick. But I think you will find you do have to kind of snicker. Just be careful
who hears you, okay? It's not as much of an insult if people don't know.
Most who have any understanding of space or rockets or satellites have heard of the
RD-180
.
But in case there are some readers who have never heard of it, it is the Russian Federation's workhorse rocket
engine. Its first flight was 20 years ago, but it was built on the shoulders of the
RD-170
, which has been in service since 1985, making it a Soviet
project. The RD-180 is essentially a two-combustion-chamber RD-170, which has four and remains the most powerful
rocket engine in the world. The RD-180 is used by the United States in its Atlas space vehicles.
For some time, that was a fairly comfortable arrangement. The USA made fun of Russia whenever it wanted to feel
superior, just as it's always done, and made the occasional ideological stab at 'establishing freedom and democracy'
by changing out its leader, but the Russian people were not particularly cooperative, and there were some problems
getting a credible 'liberal opposition' started; even now, the best candidate still seems to be Alexey Navalny, who
is kind of the granite canoe of opposition figures – not particularly well-known, nasty rather than compelling,
spiteful as a balked four-year-old.
But then American ideologues in the US Department of State decided the time was ripe for a coup in Ukraine, and
almost overnight, the United States and Russia were overt enemies. The United States, under Barack Obama,
imposed
sanctions designed to wreck the Russian economy
, in the hope that despairing Russians would throw Putin out of
office. America's European allies went along for the ride, and trade between Russia and its former trade partners and
associates in Europe and the USA mostly dried up.
Not rocket engines, though. America made an exception for those, and continued to buy and stockpile RD-180's. The
very suggestion that RD-180 engines might go on the sanctions list – US Federal Claims Court Judge Susan Braden
postulated that funds used to purchase rocket engines
might end up in Rogozin's pocket
(he being head of the Space Program, and all), and he was under US sanctions – moved the Commander of the United
States Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center to note that without RD-180 engines, the Atlas program
would have to be grounded
.
All this is by way of highlighting a certain vulnerability. Of course, observers remarked, the United States is a
major technological power – it could easily produce such engines itself. So, why didn't it, inquiring minds wanted to
know.
Enter United Launch Alliance (ULA) CEO Tony Bruno, with what reporters described as a 'novel explanation'. Thanks
much for the link, Patient Observer. The United States buys
Russian
rocket engines
to subsidize the Russian space industry
, so that fired rocket scientists will not pack up the wife and kiddies
and their few pitiful belongings, and depart for Iran or North Korea. You know; countries that
really
hate
the United States. I swear I am not making that up. Look:
"The United States is buying Russian rocket engines not because of any problems with its domestic engine
engineering programmes, but to subsidize Russian rocket scientists and to prevent them from seeking employment in
Iran or North Korea, United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno has intimated.
"The [US government] asked us to buy [Russian engines] at the end of the Cold War in order to keep the Russian
Rocket Scientists from ending up in North Korea and Iran," Bruno tweeted, responding to a question about what
motivates ULA to continue buying the Russian-made RD-180s."
Sadly, I had no Rogozin-like qualms about being thought a dick. I snorted what I was drinking (chocolate milk, I
think) all over my hand, and gurgled with mirth for a good 20 seconds. Holy Moley – what a retarded explanation! How
long did he grope for that, spluttering like Joe Biden trying to remember what office he is currently running for?
Jeebus Cripes, the United States has
no control at all
over what rocket scientists are paid in the Russian
Federation – what do they imagine prevents Putin The Diktator from just pocketing all the money himself, or spending
it on sticky buns to feed to Rogozin, and throwing a few fish heads to the rocket scientists? Do they really believe
some sort of symbiotic relationship exists between Russia's rocket scientists and the US Treasury Department?
Really
? Have things actually gotten that far down the road to Simple? I tell you, I kind of felt a little sorry
for Tony 'Lightning Rod' Bruno. But more sorry for his family, who has to go out and find him when he's wandering in
the park with no pants on again, you know. Humanitarian concerns.
"Under RD AMROSS, Pratt & Whitney is licensed to produce the RD-180 in the United States. Originally,
production of the RD-180 in the US was scheduled to begin in 2008, but this did not happen. According to a 2005 GAO
Assessment of Selected Major Weapon Programs, Pratt & Whitney planned to start building the engine in the United
States with a first military launch by 2012. This, too, did not happen. In 2014, the Defense Department estimated
that it would require approximately $1 billion and five years to begin US domestic manufacture of the RD-180 engine."
Well, no wonder! It's a lot cheaper to slip some bucks to starving Russian rocket scientists than spend a Billion
simoleons on a Pratt & Whitney program that will take
five years
(!!!) minimum to set up before it even
starts producing an engine the Russians have been making for 20 years, and gave Pratt & Whitney the plans for. Seen
in that light, it makes a weird kind of sense, dunnit? Minus the altruism and violins, of course.
Right about then, I made a second discovery that shook the fuzz off my fundament.
Tony Bruno did not make that
shit up
. No, indeedy. It would have been simpler, and I have to say a bit more comforting, to assume Tony Bruno
is the locus of American retardation. But he isn't; the poor bastard was just repeating an American doctrinal
political talking-point.
Behold
!
"When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the US government worried about the possible consequences of lots of
Russian rocket designers getting fired. What if they ended up working for regimes like Iran or North Korea?"
Pretty much word-for-word what poor Tony Bruno said. And that was posted 5 years ago.
But who cares, right? Just some wiggy space-nerd site.
Oh, but wait.
Look at his reference
. It's from NASA.
And it does indeed include the paragraph he quoted.
"Moreover, several on the Space Council, as well as others in the Bush Administration, saw another reason to
engage the post-Soviets in a cooperative space venture: as a way to help hold the Russian nation together at a time
when the Russian economy was faltering and its society was reeling. In the words of Brian Dailey, Albrecht's
sucessor, "If we did not do something in this time of social chaos in Russia, then there would be potentially a
hemorrhaging of technology 'away from Russia' to countries who may not have a more peaceful intention behind the
use of those technologies."
I'm not sure how reliable that is – the Americans still insist, in it, that they landed on the moon, and it points
out that
Dan Quayle
was head of the National Space Council, dear Lord, have mercy. But it's NASA! There was
apparently a school of thought, prevalent in American politics, that America
had to support the Russian economy
,
for fear of its technological proteges high-siding it for Dangerville. Neither North Korea or Iran are mentioned by
name, but they would certainly be easy to infer from the description.
So we could draw one of two conclusions; either (1) Obama was a witless tool who did not read that historical
imperative (probably had his nose in a healthy-greens cookbook, some shit like that) and blundered ahead with a plan
to wreck the Russian economy, loosing a torrent of Russian rocket scientists into a cynical Murka-hatin' world, or
(2) Obama was a genius who applied sanctions with a surgeon's delicacy, avoiding sanctions on the Russian space
program. Although he did apply sanctions directly on its..umm director. Okay, let's go with (1).
Anyway, it's kind of odd, I guess you'd say, to hear that same Brian Dailey, he who blubbered sympathetically (or
so history records) "We have to do something in this time of social chaos in Russia"
say
this:
"The meeting was actually more or less a signing
ceremony, a large event, so to speak, but it was one that was obviously going to be reaching into some very hard
winds that would prevent us from really moving forward. That's a rather obtuse way of saying that we were having
serious problems with the Russians. They wanted a lot of money for doing these things. They wanted to charge us a lot
of money to hook up, and we didn't believe that since this was a government-to-government activity, that money should
be appropriately involved, and it was the intention of the two Presidents to put something together that would be
funded by their respective governments rather than us trying to fund something for Russia."
Say what? You had to do something for the Russian economy without money? Tell me more.
"
At that point, Dan had got very upset with the
Russians and proceeded to tell them that we were not going to do business with Semenov directly, but our opposite
number was Yuri Koptev, and that he ought to start learning how to work with U.S. industry, and that we were not
going to pay for this particular activity and we were not going to be blackmailed into paying them, so to speak, and
insisted that this be taken off the table and we proceed to find ways of making this happen, not ways to slow it down
or charge us for any kind of cooperative activities like this.
"
This all had to do with cooperation on some sort of docking system for the Mir Space Station, nothing to do with
the RD-180, but I think you can see why I would be a bit skeptical regarding Project Payola for the Russian rocket
scientists.
You might be getting a tingly feeling – call it a suspicion – that the USA is kind of pulling our leg on the idea
that it can make a superior multi-chamber rocket engine any time it feels like it, and is just buying the RD-180 on
long-ago government orders to cut the Russians a break. You might suspect the RD-180 is actually a pretty good
engine, but the United States can't make it for that kind of money, and perhaps can't make it at all. I know! Let's
ask
United Launch Alliance
, that company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of.
"The Atlas launch vehicle's main booster engine, the RD-180, has demonstrated consistent performance with
predictable environments over the past decade. The RD-180 has substantially contributed to the established a record
of high reliability on Atlas launch vehicles since its debut on the Atlas III in May of 2000."
You don't say. Tell me more.
"In the early 1990s the closed cycle, LOx rich, staged combustion technology rumored to exist in Russia was
originally sought out by General Dynamics because engines of this kind would be able to provide a dramatic
performance increase over available U.S. rocket technology. Unlike its rocket building counterparts in the United
States, Europe, China, and Japan, Russia was able to master a unique LOx rich closed cycle combustion technology
which delivered a 25% performance increase."
But but I read the George H.W. Bush administration urged America to buy Russian rocket engines because they heard
a rumor there was a suitcase sale on at the Energomash company store. And that, you know, the scientists might be
planning a little trip.
"NPO Energomash, the leading designer of engines in Russia, had gone through hundreds of designs, each an
improvement on the last, to harness the power of LOx rich combustion. This required a very careful approach to how
the fuel is burned in the preburner so that the temperature field is uniform. It also required improvements in
materials and production techniques. They found a way to take the chamber pressures to new limits while protecting
the internal components from fire risks. This required a new class of high temperature resistant stainless steel
invented to cope with the risks of the LOx rich environment."
Oh, seriously, c'mon – is it as good as all that?
"The demonstrated performance established during this process was beyond anything achieved in the United
States. The RD-180 reaches chamber pressures up to 3,722psia which was more than double the chamber pressures
achieved by comparable U.S. engines. Exposure to Russian design philosophy and the success of a high performance
engine made U.S. engine designers question their own methods. This dual sided cross-cultural engineering approach
which has persisted through the life of the RD-180 program adds depth to the understanding of engine capability and
operational characteristics."
Okay, thanks, company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of. Good to know it wasn't just charity.
The EU should reconsider its 'all or nothing' approach on sanctions imposed on Russia for
its role in the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as its annexation of Crimea, a
new report from the International Crisis Group suggests. The Brussels-based think tank calls
for the easing of certain sanctions in exchange for Russian progress towards peace in
Ukraine.
"Inflexible sanctions are less likely to change behaviour," said Olga Oliker, Europe
and Central Asia programme director. "Because of that, we urge considering an approach that
would allow for the lifting of some sanctions in exchange for some progress, with a clear
intent to reverse that rollback of sanctions if the progress itself is reversed."
.A major roadblock in the implementation of the Minsk deal has been the sequence of
events supposed to bring an end to the conflict that has so far claimed more than 13,000
lives.
Kyiv wants to first regain control over its border with Russia before local elections
in the war-torn region can be held, while Moscow believes that elections must come
first
####
Door. Horse. Barn. Bolted.
The Intentional Critics Grope is yet again a $/€ short in the reality department.
You would think the Editor Gotev (the last two paras by him) would mention that the Minsk
agreement clearly states elections come first and that Kiev has singularly refuse the other
conditions of the agreement, but that really would be asking too much. From a professional
journalist.
It's the same shit we got with the US-North Korea 4 point nuclear agreement where
de-nuclearization of the region is the final stage yet it didn't take Washington and
ball-licking corporate media to parrot 'denuclearization' as the first point as suddently
decided by the Ovum Orifice.*
They try it on again about every six months, just to see if the Russian negotiators have
changed and if the new ones are dimwitted. I'm sure it is crystal clear to the Kremlin that
if it gave Ukraine back exclusive control of the border, it would (a) call up troops and set
up a cordon to make it impossible for eastern Ukraine to be reinforced, and (b) launch an
all-out military push to re-take the breakaway regions. The west would then shout "Safe!!!",
and the game would be over – Ukraine is (almost) whole again, praise Jeebus. There
would be a propaganda storm that Russia was 'trying to meddle in the peace process' while
Kuh-yiv rooted out and either imprisoned or executed all the 'rebel' leaders, and the west
– probably the USA – would provide 'peacekeepers' to give Ukraine time to restore
its complete control over the DNR and LPR. Then, presto! no elections required, we are all
happy Ukrainians!
They knew 'inflexible sanctions were less likely to change behaviors' when they first
agreed to impose them – but they were showing their belly to Washington, and don't know
how to stop now. Serves them right if they are losing revenue and market share.
I don't think Russia is very interested, beyond polite diplomatic raising of the eyebrows, in
relaxing of sanctions under conditions the EU is careful to highlight could be reapplied in a
trice, as soon as anyone was upset with Russia's performance. Because that moment would be
literally only a moment away. The UK can be counted on to register blistering outrage at the
drop of a hat, and while its influence on the EU will soon be limited, dogs-in-the-manger
like Poland can always be relied upon to throw themselves about in an ecstasy of victimhood.
It would be impossible to set up any sort of dependable supply chain, as the interval between
orders would never be known with any degree of certainty. Fuck the EU. Russia is better off
to press on as it has been doing. The EU has to buy oil and gas from Russia because the
logistics and price of American supplies make them economically non-competitive, and best to
just leave it there. The EU will bitch, but it will continue to buy, whereas any other
commerce would be subject to theatrical hissy fits.
As a recovering space cadet, I can take a crack at some of the issues raised above. The F-1
engine was a "relaxed design" meaning it was analogous to a low pressure steam engine; a very
big steam engine but not pushing engineering limits (beyond overcoming instability in the
combustion chamber), fluid dynamics analysis or control requirements. For example, its
chamber pressure was only about, IIRC, 800 psi or so. And it used an open cycle turbo pump
meaning that a great deal of usable energy was wasted in order to minimize design and
material challenges. The video linked below shows the launch of the Saturn V. At around 2:00,
the vehicle is just liftinf off allowing a close up of the rocket exhaust. The dark band
immediately below the nozzle is sooty and relatively cool exhaust from the turbines used to
drive the fuel and oxidizer pumps. The gas temperature is low and the soot is from running
fuel rich to eliminate free oxygen that would otherwise destroy hot metallic components.
The Russian solution embodied in the RD-170 were orders of magnitude more difficult from
an engineering standpoint. Ultrahigh chamber pressure approaching 4,000 psi and oxygen-rich
closed cycle turbopumps were viewed in the West as simply impossible to achieve. And, of
course, Russian claims were initially dismissed as propaganda.
Back to the steam engine analogy. The RD-180 could be viewed as a state-of-the-art
supercritical steam turbine designed to achieve close to the theoretical limits of
performance. In various articles, US techno-apologists said that the US chose to focus to
focus on engines using liquid hydrogen. True enough but it was due in part to an inability of
to master the oxygen-rich closed cycle technology. Besides, the hydrogen engines on the
Energia had higher performance than the SSME engines used on the US space shuttle (falsely
claimed to be the most powerful and efficient hydrogen engine)
The above is important in understanding a nation's engineering capabilities as rocket
technology involves just about every area of mechanical engineering.
The US manned lunar missions were impressive engineering feats more in terms of overall
project management and in the amount of money spent with reasonable efficiency. In short the
Russian had better engineering capability but the US far outspent them. Going to the moon
with a cold war stunt carried out by solid, if uninspired, engineering and very good project
management.
Why did the US not return to the moon? Short answer is that it served its propaganda
purposes. A noisy fraction of the global population have been convinced that the lunar
landing was of epic significance and will be the only thing remembered and venerated in the
hazy future. Not the first artificial satellite (the real dawn of the space age) nor the
first human in space (the start of human exploration of space). No, it was the AMERICANS who
will be remembered! Or, so they think.
Narrative control is the name of the game in the Skripal case.
A couple of articles about a phenomenon which was thought to exist only in
pre-Revolutionary France – the lettre de cachet – but seems to have been given a
new lease of life:
I would love to see the British government and Porton Down nailed to the barn door for this.
There's no telling if that will ever happen, but just on general principles their collective
evasiveness speaks volumes. When the truth is on your side and you know it, you shout it from
the rooftops. You don't obfuscate and hide behind national security, and pretend like amazing
technical and spycraft secrets might be compromised if you reveal your evidence.
If anyone can make it happen, it's Helmer. I've never seen such a talent for detail and
cause-and-effect. Remarkable.
I wonder if the NHS staff that took care of the Skripals and who have been keeping stumm
about that hapless duo's alleged poisoning by the Orcs with the most deadly nerve agent known
to man have performed a dance routine yet on Tik-Tok?
This is yet another demonstration that Western intelligence services became influential
political players. As Chich Republic is a NATO country its intellignce services are partially
controlled by outsiders. They also might have their own home grown neocon in the high ranks.
Czech newspaper Respekt alleges a Russian agent carrying the poison ricin arrived in
the country three weeks ago.
Mayor Zdenek Hrib refused to say why he was under protection but said he had told
police he was being followed .
####
Plenty more bs at the link.
When does the national intelligence services leak to anything but national media? When it
needs suckers! Vis the Christopher Steel Dossier of Steaming Bullshit to the Steaming Pile of
Bullshit masquerading as journalism known as Buttfeed.
We must remember that the Czech Republic is the United States' intelligence hub for
Central and Eastern Europe. Even then, a large portion of Czech citizens don't buy the
'Russia threat' propaganda, coz they voted for Babis as PM who has been under investigation
since elected because his is not anti-Russian.
These investigations have turned up nothing apart from a possible conflict of ethics
according to Brussels, which is ironic considering the latters refusal to publish minutes of
its Trilogues (closed door meetings between heads of the European Parliament, Commission
& Council) to agree EU policy before it is voted on in the Parliament – i.e.
pre-baked in secret, it's failure to have a de facto register of lobbyists etc. etc. What is
happening in Czechia is an ongoing soft coup which will not stop until Babis and others that
don't sign on are out of power. It's the wrong kind of democracy , innit?
Blobsters are simply prostitute to the military industrial complex. No honesty, no courage required (Courage is replaced with
arrogance in most cases.) Pompeo is a vivid example of this creatures of Washington swamp.
Notable quotes:
"... historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses. ..."
"... In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about. ..."
On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the
battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons
pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual
and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.
It's always fun to see the Washington foreign policy and Nat-Sec establishment get up on its
hind legs at their critics. It doesn't happen often, and when it does it's usually when someone
has touched a raw nerve, penetrating the bubble, if only momentarily. One time that comes to
mind is when TAC's Andrew Bacevich -- he's really good at this --
called out elite bubble denizens Peter Feaver and Hal Brands for what he said was "close to
being a McCarthyite smear" against realist thinkers in a Commentarypiece
entitled, "Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists."
The two men (Feaver cut his teeth in George W. Bush's National Security Council during the
height of the Iraq War; Brands is an academic with a perch at the neoconservative AEI) implored
TAC to publish a response, writing: "The stakes of debates about American grand strategy are
high, and so it is entirely proper that these debates be conducted with passion and intensity.
But it is equally vital that they be conducted without resort to the sort of baseless ad
hominem attacks that impede intellectual discourse rather than encouraging it."
Hrumph. It is not surprising now that both Feaver and Brands (joined by William Inboden,
also in Bush's wartime NSC), are at it again, this time with a longer treatise in Foreign
Affairs , entitled, "In Defense of
the Blob." The last four years have been rough for the establishment. President
Trump, after running on a platform of getting out of endless wars, is a Jacksonian who refuses
to hide his contempt for this entrenched policy class and all of their attending courtiers and
courtesans, most of whom are leftovers from the Obama, Bush and even Clinton Administrations.
Their "accumulated" knowledge means nothing to this president, as he has plowed his own
mercurial course in North Korea, Syria, Iran and the Middle East.
If that wasn't bad enough, Trump's rip in the Washington Blob's time-space-continuum has
allowed realists and restrainers to quantum leap into the space like no other administration
before. Suddenly, conservatives of all stripes are talking TAC's language. Money is pouring
into colleges and think tanks now, all with the goal of pursuing approaches outside the status
quo of hyper-militarization and American hegemony. The wars have been largely maligned as
failures of the two previous administrations and their "experts." The Quincy Institute,
populated by scholars from both the Right and Left, has risen up to directly challenge the idea
of a necessary militarized "liberal world order" to secure peace across the globe.
"In Defense of the Blob" is filled with so many straw men, lies, and misdirections that the
only takeaway is that we must have hit one hell of a nerve this time. The authors' peculiar
attempt to gaslight their critics, suggesting that we are seeing things that aren't there, is
weak. Like:
Blob theorists view the establishment as a club of like-minded elite insiders who control
everything, take care of one another, and brush off challenges to conventional wisdom. In
reality, the United States actually has a healthy marketplace of foreign policy ideas.
Discussion over American foreign policy is loud, contentious, diverse, and generally pragmatic
-- and as a result, the nation gets the opportunity to learn from its mistakes, build on its
successes, and improve its performance over time.
No, no, and no. As a reporter in this ecosystem for more years than I care to admit, I can
say with absolute certainty the reality is the opposite. The major policy think tanks in
Washington are rife with three sources of funding: government, private defense companies, and
very wealthy neoliberal and neoconservative foundations ( think
Carnegie on the left , Scaife on the right ). The
National Security and "Grand Strategy" programs at elite schools are no different. They all
have one thing in common: the status quo. As a result, the output is hardly dynamic, it's
little more than dogmatic, conventional thinking about world problems that keep bureaucrats in
jobs and always meddling, the military amped up with more hammers and nails to hit, and
politicians (and attending administrative class) favorable to either or both of these goals in
Washington, preferably in power.
This is a closed club that offers only gradations of diversity just like Democrats and
Republicans during the war: No one argued about "liberating" Iraq, only about the tactics. That
was why it was so easy for Hillary Clinton's Nat Sec team in-waiting to create the Center for a
New American Security in 2008 and transition to an Obama think tank shop in 2009. Plug and play
one for the other, counterinsurgency under Bush? Meh. Under Obama? Let's do this! They all had
a plan for staying in Afghanistan, and they made sure we were, until this day.
This doesn't even include the orbit of research centers like RAND and the Center for Naval
Analysis, which actually get government funding to churn out reports and white papers, teach
officer classes, lead war gaming, and put on conferences. Do you really think they call for
less funding, killing programs, eliminating lily pads, or egads, pulling out of entrenched
strategic relationships that might not make sense anymore? Never. The same players get the
contracts and produce just what the government wants to hear, so they can get more money. If
they don't get contracts they don't survive. It's how the swamp works.
As for it being a cabal? This ecosystem -- the Blob -- is a revolving door of sameness, a
multigenerational in-crowd of status-driven groupthink inhabiting a deep state that is both
physical and of the mind. It's a lifestyle, and a class. To get anywhere in it, you not only
have to have the right pedigree, but the right way of thinking. Ask anyone who has attempted to
break in with the "wrong credentials," or marched off the reservation in the early years of
Iraq only to be flung to the professional margins. Conference panels, sanctioned academic
journals, all run by the same crowd. Check the Council on Foreign Relations yearbook, you'll
catch the drift. You can be a neocon, you can be a "humanitarian" interventionist, but a
skeptic of American exceptionalism and its role in leading the post-WWII international system?
Ghosted.
The worst element of the Feaver/Brands/Inboden protest is not so much their pathetic attempt
to suggest that sure, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya "were misconceived and mishandled,"
but they were "no worse" than failures in the preceding decades, like the "bloody stalemate in
Korea," or "catastrophic war in Vietnam." (This completely denies that the same
consensus thinking has been leading our global and military policies for the last 75 years,
therefore the same people who blundered us into Vietnam were also responsible for backing the
contras in Nicaragua, and then blowing up wedding parties in Pakistan three decades later).
No, the worst is the straw man they present when they suggest that "scrapping
professionalism for amateurism would be a disaster." No one has ever suggested that was on
offer. If anything, there has been every attempt, by TAC and the aforementioned new movements,
to shift new voices -- academics, military strategists, politicians, policy wonks and
journalists -- who represent fresh, outside thinking into the forefront, at the levers of
power, to make a difference. People like Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Walt, Doug Macgregor, Chris
Preble, Mike Desch, are hardly lightweights, but to the Borg, they are antibodies, therefore
amateurs.
But Bacevich, Walt, et. al, did not keep their mouths shut or try to obfuscate the truth
during 18 years of failure in Afghanistan. That was left to the friends and colleagues of our
esteemed Feaver, Brands, and Inboden. They cannot deny the Blob's sins because it's all in
black & white in the
Afghanistan Papers . That's what has really hit a nerve, the raw exposure. Still, they cry,
the Blob is "not the problem," but the "solution." We think not. And we think they protest too
much.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Executive Editor of TAC . Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
Three comments:
1. Great article.
2. When the world will see the back of US troops out of Afghanistan, the way the USSR
troops pulled out, then I'll say that Trump really is different.
3. "As a reporter in this ecosystem for more years than I care to admit". Actually, it
doesn't show...
Most Russians would say that US foreign policy had nothing to do with the collapse of the
Soviet Union. So while not being a failure, it wasn't in any way a victory either. And
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after that country began side drilling into Iraqi reserves
and stealing them. Hussein complained bitterly to the international community, and invaded
only after nothing was done. How was our attack a good thing? We could of just forced the
Kuwaiti's to stop stealing Iraqi oil.
Now wait a minute. The thing is that several narratives could be constructed here. You have
the narrative that you are constructing here (to which usually one starts with the glorious
beginning of how the US defeated the the evil Nazi Germany).
The Cold War I and now the Cold War II is fundamentally the war between the idea that
private property is paramount and the idea that commons/socialized property under the aegis
of the state (preferably the nation state) is preferable. And from this perspective the
Korean war was a draw and Vietnam war was a defeat for the Mammon. Cuba is also a shining
example of the crappy US politics. Then you have the Pinochet dictatorship, installation of
the Shah in 1953, Lumumba's killing and all kind of other shenanigans (i.e. Operation
Gladius in Italy/Europe, etc.).
And I wouldn't call the Yugoslav war a high mark either.
The containment strategy worked initially because all the socialist countries started
from the rubble of WWII, with minimal industrial base and massive population losses. The
stupidity of the containment strategy is brought to light by the evolution of Vietnam after
the war. Things are getting more and more relaxed there. Even Keenan admitted that this
containment thing was/is fundamentally problematic.
Now Cold War II (started by Obama with the TPP that had as its main pillar the
destruction/privatization [for funny US money] of China's SOE) is being pursued as a
continuation of the same basic idea driving CWI, but also because the technological genie
was freed from its bottle. The ugly truth is that the US is really not that good at real,
real competition (see the history of how inefficient and incapable of technological
advancement the US Steel industry is compared with European Steel Industry; but
fundamentally this is a disease of monopolies). US benefited tremendously of the European
conflicts with a massive influx of educated people (i.e. check Einstein) and it still
benefits from all the foreign graduate students (lots of Chinese) that are for research
based academia the the main workhorses. The way medical research cannot be done without the
lab mice, same research in general cannot be conducted without the graduate students.
So, the fact that the US cannot withstand real, real competition (especially after the
hollowing out of the industrial base due to finacialization), really scares the hell out of
ruling elites. So all kind of malevolent narratives of the Manichean sorts are spun out and
fed to hoi polloi.
It is obviously that you and I live in parallel universes though...
Concerning the lack of US competitive prowess and bullying approaches (beside NS2, or
punishing buyers of Russian weapons), fresh from the news:
"Moscow is studying a report published by the US Department of Energy (DOE), which
mentions Washington's intention to squeeze Russia out of nuclear technology markets, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
"We are currently studying the report of the working group on nuclear fuel published by
the US Department of Energy. A significant part of the report is devoted to pushing Russia
and China from the international market for goods and services related to nuclear energy.
Moreover, there is every reason to believe that not only subsidies of the relevant US
industries will be used, but also non-economic methods", the ministry said, responding to a
request for a comment on the report.
In particular, the report outlines a possible strategy of seeking the "adaptation" of
national legislation of some countries in order to ensure the privileged position of US
suppliers with the active participation of Washington, the ministry said. "There is nothing
new here", it added.
Over the past decade, Washington has paid very little attention to the development of
its own nuclear energy, and therefore lags behind leaders in most areas, from uranium
mining to the construction of nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuel management, the
ministry added.
"Now the US authorities apparently intend to improve the situation", it suggested,
adding that this requires significant financial investments.
In order to achieve it, it is necessary to occupy a significant share of the
international nuclear energy market, and the US administration is well aware that it is
impossible to do this through fair competition in an acceptable time because of the lag,
the ministry said.
"Therefore, Washington intends to use non-economic leverage. Such actions by the United
States raise the question of what the principles of free trade advocated by Washington
stand for and whether, in principle, one should adhere to any rules in relations with a
state that itself does not comply with any rules and changes them in a way that is
beneficial for it at the moment", it concluded.
On 23 April, the US Department of Energy released a report from a nuclear fuel working
group, established by President Donald Trump in July, to "outline a strategy to restore
American nuclear energy leadership", according to the DOE's statement."
Its always funny how the "experts" and "professionals" are those who want to uphold the
status quo. If you hold the opposite view you're a "amateur" or "demagogue".
"What makes you more of an expert than them?"
"I pushed for and oversaw three wars! I have far more experience!"
"The National Security and 'Grand Strategy' programs at elite schools are no different."
I absolutely loved this bit because it's so true. Thank God for Kelley pointing this
out. It's indicative of the broader malaise in higher education; they've become centers for
political indoctrination. If you look at the people that comprise the faculty at these
schools, many of them are establishment heavyweights; Eliot A. Cohen, arch-neoconservative,
is Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, for
example, and served in the Bush administration. By comparison, Stephen Walt has never
served in any administration.
These schools charge unbelievable amounts of money to churn out more Eliot Cohens, more
Samantha Powers, etc. Even the military officers who take a turn in policymaking circles or
serve on a staff somewhere are staunch defenders of the institutions. In fact, the total
lack of intellectual diversity is downright disturbing; it's like brainwashing.
Worst of all? The folks who aren't establishment but still have representation in
policymaking circles are all hardliners! Think Frank Gaffney, Fred Fleitz, so on.
On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the
battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons
pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual
and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.
When the voices against US hegemony and permanent war are loud and taken seriously, then we
can hope for change. But if the same underlying assumptions about the need for military
aggression to "promote democracy," and the targeting of Russia and China as convenient
enemies, are transferred to the "new thinkers," then nothing will change. The question is,
can an aggressive capitalist system, dependent on unlimited growth, survive in a peaceful
world?
When the voices against US hegemony and permanent war are loud and taken seriously, then we
can hope for change. But if the same underlying assumptions about the need for military
aggression to "promote democracy," and the targeting of Russia and China as convenient
enemies, are transferred to the "new thinkers," then nothing will change. The question is,
can an aggressive capitalist system, dependent on unlimited growth, survive in a peaceful
world?
The Bush era foreign policy model is over, its a failed policy and everyone knows it. Obama
didn't have a foreign policy other than appeasement and capitulation.
Trump has a new model, treat foreign policy more like business. Negotiate as is done in
business, the goal is to get what you want and if the other guy gets something he wants
than fine.
Of course the Trump approach derails the entire US State Dept, security council, and all
the media talking heads, so they will oppose it.
Not really true. Trump seems to have a zero sum approach to business, a win/lose attitude
rather than win/win or only some win on the parties. The exit from JPCOA and the maximalist
approach to Iran, the way Austria-Hungary approached Serbia in August 1918, is actual Trump
attitude.
Just as i said many times, it is Trump driving US hostility and escalation in the world, and
not only those around him. He is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years.
A racist white man goes crazy the moment he understands he does not have the "biggest
dick" anymore, and is humiliated due to that, since this wasn't supposed to happen to the
people who ruled the world for 500 years.
What will happen is that american white male right wingers will start going crazy. Lashing
out in hatred against the world, after understanding they are no longer "number 1", and that
their fate will not be pretty.
You should expect US right wingers to go crazy as the US further declines. These people
thought they would rule the world. Instead they started to decline. This wasn't supposed to
happen to such superior people.
US elite will simply go crazy as the "best country in the world" loses its power.
Expect anglo craziness, outbursts of hate and hysteria. The US elite will become a mental
institution. If not for nukes, they would have started a world war already.
Devastating flashback clip of Comey just aired on @marthamaccallum show.
When asked who went around the protocol of going through the WH Counsel's office and instead decided to send the FBI agents
into White House for the Flynn perjury trap ...
...Comey smugly responds "I sent them."
Here is the clip:
@comey is preparing for prison and hoping to avoid
the death penalty. Will Obama be brought down too?
Imagine having your life and reputation ruined by rogue US govt. officials. Then years later when the plot finally comes to
light the first thing you do is post an American flag. This is the guy they wanted you to believe was a Russian asset. 🙄
https://t.co/TI768Vijn2
U.S. District Court Judge
Emmet
G. Sullivan unsealed four pages of stunning FBI emails and handwritten notes Wednesday, regarding former Trump National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn, which allegedly reveal the retired three star general was targeted by senior FBI officials for prosecution,
stated Flynn's defense attorney Sidney Powell. Those notes and emails revealed that the retired three-star general appeared to be
set up for a perjury trap by the senior members of the bureau and agents charged with investigating the now-debunked allegations
that President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, said Sidney Powell, the defense lawyer representing Flynn.
Moreover, the
Department of Justice release 11 more pages of documents Wednesday afternoon, according to Powell.
While we await Judge Sullivan's order to unseal the exhibits from Friday, the government has just provided 11 more pages even
more appalling that the Friday production. We have requested the redaction process begin immediately.
@GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate pic.twitter.com/YPEjZWbdvo
"What is especially terrifying is that without the integrity of Attorney General Bill Barr and
U.S. Attorney Jensen , we still would not have this clear exculpatory information as Mr. Van Grack and the prosecutors have opposed
every request we have made," said Powell.
It appears, based on the notes and emails that the Department of Justice was determined at the time to prosecute Flynn, regardless
of what they found, Powell said.
"The FBI pre-planned a deliberate attack on Gen. Flynn and willfully chose to ignore mention of Section 1001 in the interview
despite full knowledge of that practice," Powell said in a statement.
"The FBI planned it as a perjury trap at best and in so doing put it in writing stating 'what is our goal? Truth/ Admission
or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired."
The documents, reviewed and obtained by SaraACarter.com , reveal that
senior FBI officials discussed strategies for targeting and setting up Flynn, prior to interviewing him at the White House on Jan.
24, 2017. It was that interview at the White House with former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka that
led Flynn, now 61, to plead guilty after months of pressure by prosecutors, financial strain and threats to prosecute his son.
Powell filed a motion earlier this year to withdraw Flynn's guilty plea and to dismiss his case for egregious government misconduct.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017, under duress by government prosecutors, to lying to investigators about his conversations
with Russian diplomat
Sergey Kislyak about sanctions on Russia. This January, however, he withdrew his guilty plea in the U.S. District Court in Washington,
D.C. He stated that he was "innocent of this crime" and was coerced by the FBI and prosecutors under threats that would charge his
son with a crime. He filed to withdraw his guilty plea after DOJ prosecutors went back on their word and asked the judge to sentence
Flynn to up to six months in prison, accusing him of not cooperating in another case against his former partner. Then prosecutors
backtracked and said probation would be fine but by then Powell, his attorney, had already filed to withdraw his guilty plea.
The documents reveal that prior to the interview with Flynn in January, 2017 the FBI had already come to the conclusion that Flynn
was guilty and beyond that the officials were working together to see how best to corner the 33-year military veteran and former
head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bureau deliberately chose not to show him the evidence of his phone conversation to
help him in his recollection of events, which is standard procedure. Even stranger, the agents that interviewed Flynn later admitted
that they didn't believe he lied during the interview with them.
Powell told this reporter last week that the documents produced by the government are "stunning Brady evidence' proving Flynn
was deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI to target President Trump.
She noted earlier this week in her motion that the evidence "also defeats any argument that the interview of Mr. Flynn on January
24 was material to any 'investigation.' The government has deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution
-- knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn."
Powell told this reporter Wednesday that the order by Sullivan to unseal the documents in Exhibit 3 in the supplement to Flynn's
motion to dismiss for egregious government conduct is exposing the truth to the public. She said it's "easy to see that he was set
up and that Mr. Flynn was the insurance policy for the FBI." Powell's reference to the 'insurance policy,' is based on one of the
thousands of texts exchanged by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her then-lover former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.
In an Aug. 15, 2016, text from Strzok to Page he states, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's
(former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's
like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40."
The new documents were turned over to Powell, by U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea. They were discovered after an extensive review by
the attorneys appointed by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review Flynn's case, which includes U.S. Attorney of St. Louis,
Jeff Jensen.
In one of the emails dated Jan. 23, 2017, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who at the time was having an affair with Strzok and who worked
closely with him on the case discussed the charges the bureau would bring on Flynn before the actual interview at the White House
took place. Those email exchanges were prepared for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by the DOJ for lying
multiple times to investigators with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's office.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Trump for his conduct, revealed during an interview with Nicolle Wallace
last year that he sent the FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House under circumstances he would have never done to another
administration.
"I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration,"
Comey said. "In the George W. Bush administration or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation
for over the last two years."
In the Jan 23, email Page asks Strzok the day before he interviews Flynn at the White House:
"I have a question for you. Could the admonition re 1001 be given at the beginning at the interview? Or does it have
to come following a statement which agents believe to be false? Does the policy speak to that? (I feel bad that I don't know this
but I don't remember ever having to do this! Plus I've only charged it once in the context of lying to a federal probation officer).
It seems to be if the former, then it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.
"Of course as you know sir, federal law makes it a crime to "
Strzok's response:
I haven't read the policy lately, but if I recall correctly, you can say it at any time. I'm 90 percent sure about that, but
I can check in the am.
In the motion filed earlier this week, Powell stated "since August 2016 at the latest, partisan FBI and DOJ leaders conspired
to destroy Mr. Flynn. These documents show in their own handwriting and emails that they intended either to create an offense they
could prosecute or at least get him fired. Then came the incredible malfeasance of Mr. Van Grack's and the SCO's prosecution despite
their knowledge there was no crime by Mr. Flynn."
Attached to the email is handwritten notes regarding Flynn that are stunning on their face. It is lists of how the agents will
guide him in an effort to get him to trip up on his answers during their questioning and what charges they could bring against him.
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide," state the handwritten notes.
"Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address
it."
The next two points reveal that the agents were concerned about how their interview with Flynn would be perceived saying "if we're
seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious."
"Protect our institution by not playing games," t he last point on the first half of the hand written notes state.
From the handwritten note:
Afterwards:
interview
I agreed yesterday that we shouldn't show Flynn (redacted) if he didn't admit
I thought @ it last night, I believe we should rethink this
What is (not legible) ? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
we regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing
I don't see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him
If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide
Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address
it
If we're seen as playing games, WH will be furious
Protect our institution by not playing games
(Left column)
we have case on Flynn & Russians
Our goal is to (not legible)
Our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth or if he lies @ relationship w/ Russians
can quote (redacted)
Shouldn't (redacted
Review (not legible) stand alone
It appears evident from an email from former FBI agent Strzok, who interviewed Flynn at the White House to then FBI General Counsel
James Baker, who is no longer with the FBI and was himself under investigation for leaking alleged national security information
to the media.
The email was a series of questions to prepare McCabe for his phone conversation with Flynn on the day the agents went to interview
him at the White House. These questions would be questions that Flynn may ask McCabe before sending the agents over to interview
him.
Email from Peter Strzok, cc'd to FBI General Counsel James Baker: (January 24, 2017)
I'm sure he's thought through these, but for DD's (referencing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) consideration about how to answer
in advance of his call with Flynn:
Am I in trouble?
Am I the subject of an investigation?
Is it a criminal investigation?
Is it an espionage investigation? Do I need an attorney? Do I need to tell Priebus? The President?
Will you tell Priebus? The President? Will you tell the WH what I tell you?
What happens to the information/who will you tell what I tell you? Will you need to interview other people?
Will our interview be released publically? Will the substance of our interview be released?
How long will this take (depends on his cooperation – I'd plan 45 minutes)? Can we do this over the phone?
I can explain all this right now, I did this, this, this [do you shut him down? Hear him out? Conduct the interview if he starts
talking? Do you want another agent/witness standing by in case he starts doing this?]
President Donald Trump has bashed former FBI Director James Comey, after unsealed documents
revealed an agency plot to entrap Gen. Michael Flynn in a bid to take down the Trump
presidency. "DIRTY COP JAMES COMEY GOT CAUGHT!" Trump tweeted on Thursday morning, in
one of a series of tweets lambasting the FBI's prosecution of retired army general Michael
Flynn, which he called a "scam."
Flynn served as Trump's national security adviser in the first days of the Trump presidency,
before he was fired for allegedly lying about his contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak.
An FBI investigation followed, and several months later, Flynn pleaded guilty to Special
Counsel Robert Mueller about lying during interviews with agents. He has since tried to
withdraw the plea, citing poor legal defense and accusing the FBI and Obama administration of
setting him up from the outset.
Documents unsealed by a federal judge on Wednesday seem to support that argument. In one
handwritten note, dated the same day as Flynn's FBI interview in January 2017, the unidentified
note-taker jots down some potential strategies to use against the former general.
"We have a case on Flynn + Russians," the note reads. "What's our goal?
Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
#FLYNN docs just
unsealed, including handwritten notes 1/24/2017 day of Flynn FBI interview. Transcript: "What
is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
Read transcript notes, copy original just filed. @CBSNews
pic.twitter.com/8oqUok8i7m
The unsealed documents also include an email exchange between former agent Peter Strzok and
former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, in which the pair pondered whether to remind Flynn that lying to
federal agents is a crime. Page and Strzok were later fired from the agency, after a slew of
text messages emerged showing the pair's mutual disdain for Trump, and discussing the
formulation of an "insurance policy" against his election.
Flynn's discussions with Kislyak were deemed truthful by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe. Additionally, a Washington Post
article published the day before Flynn's January 2017 interview revealed that the FBI had
tapped his calls with the Russian ambassador and found "nothing illicit."
Still, Section 1001 of the US Criminal Code, which makes it illegal to lie to a federal
agent, is broad in its scope. Defense Attorney Solomon Wisenberg
wrote that "even a decent person who tries to stay out of trouble can face criminal
exposure under Section 1001 through a fleeting conversation with government agents."
Early January 2017 Recommendation To Close Case on General Flynn Rebuffed by FBI Leaders
by Larry C Johnson
The document dump from the Department of Justice on the Michael Flynn case continues and the
information is shocking and damning. It is now clear why previous leaders of the Department of
Justice (Sessions and Rosenstein) and current FBI Director Wray tried to keep this material
hidden. There is now no doubt that Jim Comey and Andy McCabe help lead and direct a conspiracy
to frame Michael Flynn for a "crime" regardless of the actual facts surrounding General Flynn's
conduct.
The most stunning revelation from today's document release is that the FBI agents who
investigated Michael Flynn aka "Crossfire Razor" RECOMMENDED on the 4th of January 2017 that
the investigation of Flynn be closed. Let that sink in. The FBI agents investigating Flynn
found nothing to justify either a criminal or counter-intelligence investigation more than two
weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated as President. Yet, FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy
Director McCabe, with the help of General Counsel Jim Baker, Assistant Director for Counter
Intelligence Bill Priestap, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok decided to try to manufacture a crime
against Flynn.
The documents released on Wednesday made clear that as of January 21st, the FBI Conspirators
were scrambling to find pretext for entrapping and charging General Flynn. Here is the
transcription of Bill Priestap's handwritten notes:
Apologists for these criminal acts by FBI officials insist this was all routine. "Nothing to
see here." "Move along." Red State's Nick Arama did a good job of reporting on the absurdity of
this idiocy (
see here ). Former US Attorney Andy McCarthy cuts to the heart of the matter:
"They did not have a legitimate investigative reason for doing this and there was no
criminal predicate or reason to treat him [Flynn] like a criminal suspect," McCarthy
explained.
"They did the interview outside of the established protocols of how the FBI is supposed to
interview someone on the White House staff. They are supposed to go through the Justice
Department and the White House counsel's office. They obviously purposely did not do that and
they were clearly trying to make a case on this."
"For years, a number of us have been arguing that this looked like a perjury trap," McCarthy
said.
Today's (Thursday) document dump reinforces the validity of McCarthy's conclusion that this
was a concocted perjury trap. The key document is the "Closing Communication" PDF dated 4
January 2017. It is a summary of the FBI's investigation of Crossfire Razor (i.e., Mike Flynn).
The document begins with this summary:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an articulable factual basis that Crossfire Razor
(CR) may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation
which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security. . . . Specifically, .
. . CR had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by
open source information; and CR traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open source
information.
The Agent conveniently fails to mention that Flynn's contacts with Russia in December 2015
were not at his initiative but came as an invitation from his Speaker's Bureau. Moreover,
General Flynn, because he still held TS/SCI clearances, informed the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) of the trip, received permission to make the trip and, upon returning to the
United States from Russia, was fully debriefed by DIA. How is that an indicator of posing a
threat to the national security of the United States?
The goal of the investigation is stated very clearly on page two of the document:
. . . to determine whether the captioned subject, associated with the Trump campaign, was
directed and controlled by and/or coordinated activities with the Russian federation in a
manner which is a threat to the national security and/or possibly a violation of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, 18 U.S.C. section 951 et seq, or other related statutes.
And what did the FBI find? NOTHING. NADA. ZIPPO. The Agent who wrote this report played it
straight and the investigation in the right way. He or she concluded:
The Crossfire Hurricane team determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable
candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation. If new information is identified or reported to the FBI regarding the
activities of CROSSFIRE RAZOR, the FBI will consider reopening the investigation if
warranted.
This document is dated 4 January 2017. But Peter Strzok sent a storm of text messages to the
Agent who drafted the report asking him to NOT close the case.
This is not how a normal criminal or counter-intelligence case would be conducted. Normally
you would have actual evidence or "indicia" of criminal or espionage activity. But don't take
me word for it. Jim Comey bragged about this outrageous
conduct:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NxNhjFrjXqI
Comey is a corrupt, sanctimonious prick. I suspect he may not think what he did was so funny
in the coming months. He may have forgotten saying this stupidity, but the video remains
intact.
The documents being released over the last week provide great insight into Attorney General
William Barr's strategy. He is not going to entertain media debates and back-and-forth with the
apologists for treason. He is letting the documents speak for themselves and ensuring that US
Attorneys--who are not part of the fetid, Washington, DC sewer--review the documents and
procedures used to prosecute political figures linked to President Trump. Then those documents
are legally and appropriately released. Barr is playing by the rules.
We are not talking about the inadvertent discovery of an isolated mistake or an act of
carelessness. The coup against Trump was deliberate and the senior leadership of the FBI
actively and knowingly participated in this plot. Exposing and punishing them remains a top
priority for Attorney General Barr, who understands that a failure to act could spell the doom
of this Republic.
No indictments.
Not for this bunch of swamp rats.
One set of laws for the swamp, another for America.
And now the same swamp - the bureaucrat pinhead version - are destroying the economy and
shutting down the country?.
Why?
Terrible decisions based on worse "data" AND tank the economy and Trump's re-election
chances.
Flynn has been bankrupted. He has fought valiantly to restore his honor ALONE. His fate is in
many ways in the hands of Judge Sullivan.
Trump other than tweet has done what for someone that brought military and national
security cred to his campaign? Let's not forget that Flynn was fired ostensibly for lying to
VP Pence. Exactly what the putschists wanted to accomplish.
blue peacock
Flynn is a nice Irish Catholic boy from Rhode Island whose father a retired MP staff sergeant
and branch manager of a local bank successfully cultivated the ROTC staff at U of RI so that
his two sons were given army ROTC scholarships in management, something their father could
understand. Michael and his brother, both generals are NOT members of the WP club and
therefore available for sacrifice. Michael Flynn occupied a narrow niche in Military
Intelligence. He was a targeting guy in the counter-terrorism bidness and rode that train to
the top without much knowledge or experience of anything else. He and his boss Stan
McChrystal, soul mates. He was singularly unqualified to be head of one of the major agencies
of the IC. IMO Martin Dempsey, CJCS (a member of the WP club) used Flynn to stand up to
Brennan's CIA and the NSC nuts at the WH while standing back in the shade himself. That is
why Obama cautioned Trump to be wary of North Korea and Michael Flynn. And this "innocent"
was then mousetrapped by people he thought were patriots.
True then, but what was not expected was Trump neither resigning nor being impeached nor
getting a new AG who would launch the Durham investigation. I wonder what FISA warrants are
out related to the Chinese virus and associated communications with US and Chinese nationals.
At least we don't have Obama's cast of characters involved in that, unless we have his "j.v."
team.
Someone that doesn't show up much in The NY Times or the Washington Post now but was the
central character in numerous scurrilous stories. Svetlana Lokhova was falsely slandered for
having an affair with Gen.Flynn and accused as a Russian agent by CIA/FBI agent Stefan
Halper.
What we learned today from the STUNNING document release in the case of @GenFlynn 1. FBI
opened a full-blown counterintelligence investigation in 2016 on the ex head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency while he was working for a political campaign based on one piece of
false intel
Its mind blowing the vast tentacles of this conspiracy at the highest levels of our law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is even more mind blowing that the miscreants have
profited so handsomely with book deals, media sinecures, GoFundMe campaigns. None have been
prosecuted.
Now rogue academics, rogue journalists, rogue former officials – anyone, in fact
– can go online and discover a myriad of things that until recently no one outside a
small establishment circle was ever supposed to understand. If you know where to look, you can
even find some of this stuff on Wikipedia (see, for example, Operation Timber Sycamore ).
The effect of this information overload has been to disorientate the great majority of us
who lack the time, the knowledge and the analytical skills to sift through it all and make
sense of the world around us. It is hard to discriminate when there is so much information
– good and bad alike – to digest.
Nonetheless, we have got a sense from these online debates, reinforced by events in the
non-virtual world, that our politicians do not always tell the truth, that money – rather
than the public interest – sometimes wins out in decision-making processes, and that our
elites may be little better equipped than us – aside from their expensive educations
– to run our societies.
Two decades of lies
There has been a handful of staging posts over the past two decades to our current era of
the Great Disillusionment. They include:
lack of transparency in the US government's
investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 (obscured by a parallel online controversy
about what took place that day); the
documented lies told about the reasons for launching a disastrous and illegal war of
aggression against Iraq in 2003 that unleashed regional chaos, waves of destabilising
migration into Europe and new, exceptionally brutal forms of political Islam; the
astronomical bailouts after the 2008 crash of bankers whose criminal activities nearly
bankrupted the global economy (but who were never held to account) and instituted more
than a decade of austerity measures that had to be paid for by the public; the refusal by
western governments and global institutions to take any
leadership on tackling climate change , as not only the science but the weather itself
has made the urgency of that emergency clear, because it would mean taking on their corporate
sponsors; and now the criminal failures of our governments to
prepare for, and respond properly to, the Covid-19 pandemic, despite many years of warnings.
Anyone who still takes what our governments say at face value well, I have several bridges
to sell you.
Experts failed us
But it is not just governments to blame. The failings of experts, administrators and the
professional class have been all too visible to the public as well. Those officials who have
enjoyed easy access to prominent platforms in the state-corporate media have obediently
repeated what state and corporate interests wanted us to hear, often only for that information
to be exposed later as incomplete, misleading or downright fabricated.
In the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, too many political scientists, journalists and
weapons experts kept their heads down, keen to preserve their careers and status, rather than
speak up in support of those rare experts like Scott Ritter and
the late David Kelly who
dared to sound the alarm that we were not being told the whole truth.
In 2008, only a handful of economists was prepared to break with corporate orthodoxy and
question whether throwing money at bankers exposed as financial criminals was wise, or to
demand that these bankers be prosecuted. The economists did not argue the case that there must
be a price for the banks to pay, such as a public stake in the banks that were bailed out, in
return for forcing taxpayers to massively invest in these discredited businesses. And the
economists did not propose overhauling our financial systems to make sure there was no
repetition of the economic crash. Instead, they kept their heads down as well, in the hope that
their large salaries continued and that they would not lose their esteemed positions in
think-tanks and universities.
... ... ...
And recently we have learnt, for example, that a series of Conservative governments in the
UK recklessly ran down the
supplies of hospital protective gear , even though they had more than a decade of warnings
of a coming pandemic. The question is why did no scientific advisers or health officials blow
the whistle earlier. Now it is too late to save the lives of many thousands, including dozens
of medical staff, who have fallen victim so far to the virus in the UK.
Lesser of two evils
Worse still, in the Anglosphere of the US and the UK, we have ended up with political
systems that offer a choice between one party that supports a brutal, unrestrained version of
neoliberalism and another party that supports a marginally less brutal, slightly mitigated
version of neoliberalism. (And we have recently discovered in the UK that, after the grassroots
membership of one of those twinned parties managed to choose a leader in Jeremy Corbyn who
rejected this orthodoxy, his own party machine conspired
to throw the election rather than let him near power.) As we are warned at each election, in
case we decide that elections are in fact futile, we enjoy a choice – between the lesser
of two evils.
Those who ignore or instinctively defend these glaring failings of the modern corporate
system are really in no position to sit smugly in judgment on those who wish to question the
safety of 5G, or vaccines, or the truth of 9/11, or the reality of a climate catastrophe, or
even of the presence of lizard overlords.
Because through their reflexive dismissal of doubt, of all critical thinking on anything
that has not been pre-approved by our governments and by the state-corporate media, they have
helped to disfigure the only yardsticks we have for measuring truth or falsehood. They have
forced on us a terrible choice: to blindly follow those who have repeatedly demonstrated they
are not worthy of being followed, or to trust nothing at all, to doubt everything. Neither
position is one a healthy, balanced individual would want to adopt. But that is where we are
today.
Big Brother regimes
It is therefore hardly surprising that those who have been so discredited by the current
explosion of information – the politicians, the corporations and the professional class
– are wondering how to fix things in the way most likely to maintain their power and
authority.
They face two, possibly complementary options.
ORDER IT NOW
One is to allow the information overload to continue, or even escalate. There is an argument
to be made that the more possible truths we are presented with, the more powerless
we feel and the more willing we are to defer to those most vocal in claiming authority.
Confused and hopeless, we will look to father figures, to the strongmen of old, to those who
have cultivated an aura of decisiveness and fearlessness, to those who look like down-to-earth
mavericks and rebels.
This approach will throw up more Donald Trumps, Boris Johnsons and Jair Bolsonaros. And
these men, while charming us with their supposed lack of orthodoxy, will still, of course, be
exceptionally accommodating to the most powerful corporate interests – the military-industrial complex
– that really run the show.
The other option, which has already been road-tested under the rubric of "fake news", will
be to treat us, the public, like irresponsible children, who need a firm, guiding hand. The
technocrats and professionals will try to re-establish their authority as though the last two
decades never occurred, as though we never saw through their hypocrisy and lies.
They will cite "conspiracy theories" – even the true ones – as proof that it is
time to
impose new curbs on internet freedoms, on the right to speak and to think. They will argue
that the social media experiment has run its course and proved itself a menace – because
we, the public, are a menace. They are already flying trial balloons for this new Big Brother
world, under cover of tackling the health threats posed by the Covid-19 epidemic.
Surveillance a price worth paying to beat coronavirus, says Blair thinktank https://t.co/AAb1nnv4pG
We should not be surprised that the "thought-leaders" for shutting down the cacophony of the
internet are those whose failures have been most exposed by our new freedoms to explore the
dark recesses of the recent past. They have included Tony Blair, the British prime minister who
lied western publics into the disastrous and illegal war on Iraq in 2003, and Jack Goldsmith,
rewarded as a Harvard law professor for his role – since whitewashed – in helping
the Bush administration legalise torture and step up warrantless surveillance programmes.
Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman,
credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and
laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK
pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I
The only alternative to a future in which we are ruled by Big Brother technocrats like Tony
Blair, or by chummy authoritarians who brook no dissent, or a mix of the two, will require a
complete overhaul of our societies' approach to information. We will need fewer curbs on free
speech, not more.
The real test of our societies – and the only hope of surviving the coming
emergencies, economic and environmental – will be finding a way to hold our leaders truly
to account. Not based on whether they are secretly lizards, but on what they are doing to save
our planet from our all-too-human, self-destructive instinct for acquisition and our craving
for guarantees of security in an uncertain world.
That, in turn, will require a transformation of our relationship to information and debate.
We will need a new model of independent, pluralistic, responsive, questioning media that is
accountable to the public, not to billionaires and corporations. Precisely the kind of media we
do not have now. We will need media we can trust to represent the full range of credible,
intelligent, informed debate, not the narrow Overton window through which we get a highly
partisan, distorted view of the world that serves the 1 per cent – an elite so richly
rewarded by the current system that they are prepared to ignore the fact that they and we are
hurtling towards the abyss.
With that kind of media in place – one that truly holds politicians to account and
celebrates scientists for their contributions to collective knowledge, not their usefulness to
corporate enrichment – we would not need to worry about the safety of our communications
systems or medicines, we would not need to doubt the truth of events in the news or wonder
whether we have lizards for rulers, because in that kind of world no one would rule over us.
They would serve the public for the common good.
Sounds like a fantastical, improbable system of government? It has a name: democracy. Maybe
it is time for us finally to give it a go.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
POST COVID. Russians turn out to have quite a bit
saved : 16% say they have enough for a year or more; 25% for 3-6 months; 29% for 1-2
months; 30% report none. The quoted piece sees this as a disaster but, when you add in the
support measures the state has provided during the shutdown, low health, education and housing
costs, Russians will come out of this better off than many other countries. ( Thanks to Jon Hellevig ).
THE GREAT PUTIN DISAPPEARANCE II. " Putin Has
Vanished, but Rumors Are Popping Up Everywhere " says the NYT. Memory lane trip
time. For a modest retainer I will provide the West's intelligence agencies and media
access to the top-secret, well-hidden and known-to-only-a-few-of-the-initiated information on
his activities. (BTW, we need a new word in English to cover the concept of "stupid".)
HISTORY. A large church to " unite
all Orthodox Christians serving in the Armed Forces" is nearly finished outside
Moscow . (I do wish they'd stop translating " храм" as
"cathedral"). RFE
sneers ;
Moscow Times melts down . Four halls will commemorate three warrior saints and a famous
icon from the 1812 war. As I've said before, unlike some countries that prefer to airbrush their
histor y or turn it upside down (as did the USSR, of course) modern Russia attempts to face
it all:
Stalin plus the Smolensk Icon ; it all
happened, why pretend that half of it didn't?
Speaking of Russian paratroopers, there is a Russian "reality TV show" about an all female
battalion "of cadets determined to become officers in Russia's elite airborne troops" on
youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucqgTWIg9DI
As someone interested in cultural differences I have found it interesting.
Newly unsealed documents indicate that the FBI targeted former National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn for prosecution, showing senior officials at the bureau discussing ways to
ensnare him in a "perjury trap" before an interview.
The four pages of documents were
unsealed by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Wednesday, revealing in handwritten notes
and emails that the FBI's goal in investigating Flynn may have been "to get him to lie so we
can prosecute him or get him fired."
"The FBI planned it as a perjury trap at best and in so doing put it in writing,"
Flynn's defense attorney Sidney Powell said in a statement.
Sullivan also ordered another 11 pages of documents unsealed, which, according to Powell ,
may soon be redacted and published.
How they planned to get Flynn removed:1) Get Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act";
or2) Catch Flynn in a lie.Their end goal was a referral to the DOJ - not to investigate
Flynn's contacts with the Russians. pic.twitter.com/Vty3FYaSt9
The potentially exculpatory documents were inexplicably denied to Flynn's defense team for
years, despite numerous requests to the government.
"What is especially terrifying is that without the integrity of Attorney General Bill
Barr and US Attorney Jensen, we still would not have this clear exculpatory information as ...
the prosecutors have opposed every request we have made," Powell said.
The role of the FBI in instigating the prosecution of Michael Flynn, the criminality of its conduct, and
the encouragement it received in doing so from senior Obama officials should offend everyone.
In a dramatic new turn of events, the legal team for Flynn, President Trump's former national security
advisor, says the Department of Justice has turned over exculpatory evidence in his case.Flynn is
defending against charges he lied to FBI agents in the course of their investigation into allegations of
Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
At a minimum, this information, which
includes evidence that US government prosecutors illegally coerced a guilty plea by threatening Flynn's
son with prosecution, warrants the withdrawal of that guilty plea. Whether or not the judge in the case,
US District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan, will dismiss the entire case against Flynn on the grounds of
prosecutorial misconduct is yet to be seen. One fact, however, emerges from this sordid affair: the FBI,
lauded by its supporters as the world's
"premier law enforcement agency,"
is anything but.
Evidence of FBI misconduct during its investigation into alleged collusion between members of the
Trump campaign team and the Russian government in the months leading up to the presidential election has
been mounting for some time. From mischaracterizing information provided by former British MI6 officer
Christopher Steele in order to manufacture a case against then-candidate Trump, to committing fraud
against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize wiretaps on former low-level Trump
advisor Carter Page, the FBI has a record of corruption that would make a third-world dictator envious.
The crimes committed under the aegis of the FBI are not the actions of rogue agents, but rather part
and parcel of a systemic effort managed from the very top – both former Director James Comey and current
Director Christopher Wray are implicated in facilitating this criminal conduct. Moreover, it was carried
out in collaboration with elements within the Department of Justice, and with the assistance of national
security officials working for the Obama administration, making for a conspiracy that would rival any
investigation conducted by the FBI under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The heart of the case against Michael Flynn – a flamboyant, decorated combat veteran, with 33 years of
honorable service in the US Army – revolves around a phone call he made to the Russian ambassador to the
United States, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29, 2016. That was the same day then-President Obama ordered
the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US on charges of espionage. The conversation was
intercepted by the National Security Agency as part of its routine monitoring of Russian communications.
Normally, the identities of US citizens caught up in such surveillance are
"masked,"
or hidden,
so as to preserve their constitutional rights. However, in certain instances deemed critical to national
security, the identity can be
"unmasked"
to help further an investigation, using
"minimization"
standards designed to protect the identities and privacy of US citizens.
In Flynn's case, these
"minimization"
standards were thrown out the window: on January 12,
2017, and again on February 9, the Washington Post published articles that detailed Flynn's phone call
with Kislyak. US Attorney John Durham, tasked by Attorney General William P Barr to lead a review of the
actions taken by law enforcement and intelligence officials as part of the Russian collusion scandal, is
currently investigating the potential leaking of classified information by Obama-era officials in
relation to these articles.
Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was the central topic of interest when a pair of FBI agents, led by
Peter Strzok, met with Flynn in his White House office on January 24, 2017. This meeting later served as
the source of the charge levied against him for lying to a federal agent. It also provided grist for then
acting-Attorney General Sally Yates to travel to the White House on January 26 to warn then-White House
Counsel Michael McGahn that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with
Kislyak, and, as such, was in danger of being compromised by the Russians.
That Flynn lied, or otherwise misrepresented, his conversation with Kislyak to Pence is not in
dispute; indeed, it was this act that prompted President Trump to fire Flynn in the first place. But
lying to the Vice President, while wrong, is not a crime. Lying to FBI agents, however, is. And yet the
available evidence suggests that not only did Flynn not lie to Strzok and his partner when interviewed on
January 24, but that the FBI later doctored its report of the interview, known in FBI parlance as a
"302 report,"
to show that Flynn had. Internal FBI documents and official testimony clearly show
that a 302 report on Strzok's conversation with Flynn was prepared contemporaneously, and that he had
shown no indication of deception. However, in the criminal case prepared against him by the Department of
Justice, a 302 report dated August 22, 2017 – over seven months after the interview – was cited as the
evidence underpinning the charge of lying to a federal agent.
The evidence of a doctored 302 report, when combined with the evidence that the US prosecutor
conspired with Flynn's former legal counsel to
"keep secret"
the details of his plea agreement,
in violation of so-called Giglio requirements (named after the legal precedent set in Giglio v. United
States which holds that the failure to disclose immunity deals to co-conspirators constitutes a violation
of due-process rights), constitutes a clear-cut case of FBI malfeasance and prosecutorial misconduct.
Under normal circumstances, that should warrant the dismissal of the government's case against Flynn.
Whether Judge Emmet G Sullivan will agree to a dismissal, or, if not, whether the Department of
Justice would seek to retry Flynn, are not known at this time. What is known, however, is the level of
corruption that exists within the FBI and elements of the Department of Justice, regarding their
prosecution of a US citizen for purely political motive. Notions of integrity and fealty to the rule of
law that underpin the opinions of many Americans when it comes to these two institutions have been
shredded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law is meaningless when the FBI targets you. If
this could happen to a man with Michael Flynn's stature and reputation, it can happen to anyone.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing
the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on
Twitter @RealScottRitter
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The Trump administration has been desperately trying to kill the nuclear deal for the last two years after reneging on it. Now
they will try to kill it by
pretending to
be part of it again:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing a legal argument that the United States remains a participant in the Iran nuclear
accord that President Trump has renounced, part of an intricate strategy to pressure the United Nations Security Council to extend
an arms embargo on Tehran or see far more stringent sanctions reimposed on the country.
The administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There is nothing "intricate" about
this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it. It is just the latest in a series
of administration moves that tries to have things both ways. They want to renege on U.S. commitments while still refusing to allow
Iran to benefit from the agreement, and they ultimately hope to make things difficult enough for Iran that their government chooses
to give up on the agreement. It reeks of bad faith and contempt for international law, and all other governments will be able to
see right through it. Some of our European allies have already said as much:
European diplomats who have learned of the effort maintain that Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo are selectively choosing whether
they are still in the agreement to fit their agenda.
It is significant that the Trump administration feels compelled to go through this charade after telling everyone for years that
the U.S. is no longer in the deal. Until now, Trump administration officials have been unwavering in saying that the U.S. is out
of the deal and can't be considered a participant in it:
Can't wait to see the tortured memo out of State/L claiming that somehow the U.S. is still a participant in the JCPOA. The
May 8, 2018 announcement is literally titled "Ceasing U.S. Participation in the JCPOA ."
https://t.co/I5t8LaC7dN
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and
relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical
unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just
the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".
There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that
information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business
interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.
It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with
many "evil China" outbursts every day.
Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its
business interests.
Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving
many anti-system voices.
His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no
problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as
OPCW, WADA, etc.)
Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side
of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a
good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.
Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did
far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake
to support him.
"... These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold War. ..."
Last Thursday, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman issued a
warning in the New
York Times . "The pandemic will eventually end," he wrote, "but democracy, once lost, may never come back. And we're much closer
to losing our democracy than many people realize." Citing the Wisconsin election debacle -- the Supreme Court ruled that voters would
have to vote in person, risking their health -- Krugman argued that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are using the crisis for
their own, authoritarian ends.
This is the perennial critique of Trump: that he is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, 'would want to establish
total control over society.'
Krugman is not alone. As early as last month, when cases of COVID-19 first began to surge in the United States, Masha Gessen
wrote in the New Yorker that the virus was fueling "Trump's autocratic instincts." They argued, "We have long known
that Trump has totalitarian instincts . . . the coronavirus has brought us a step closer." This is indeed the once and future critique
of the Trump presidency: that Trump is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, "would want to establish total control over
a mobilized society." A few days ago, Salon
published an article arguing that the president is using the virus to prepare "the ground for a totalitarian dictatorship." Even
Meghan McCain, as unlikely a person as any to agree with Gessen,
indicated recently that Trump has "always been a sort of totalitarian president" and that he might use the virus to "play on
the American public's fears in a draconian way and possibly do something akin to the Patriot Act."
These critiques make ample use of the term totalitarianism -- "that most horrible of inventions of the twentieth century," in
Gessen's summation . They and other commentators also use it to describe Fidel Castro's Cuba to Vladimir Putin's Russia, which
Gessen left in 2013. As right-wing populism has surged around the world in recent years, the term has had something of a renaissance.
Hannah Arendt's 1951 classic The Origins of Totalitarianism became a best seller again after
Donald Trump's election in November 2016.
This uptick in the term's use runs counter to the trend among historians, for whom the idea of totalitarianism carries increasingly
little weight. Many of us see the term primarily as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful analyses
of them. Scholars often prefer the much broader term authoritarianism, which denotes any form of government that concentrates political
power in the hands of an unaccountable elite. But the fact that historians who study such governments eschew the term totalitarianism,
even as it enjoys wide public currency, points not only to a disconnect between the academy and the general public, but also to a
problem that Americans have in thinking about dictatorship. And it underscores our collective uncertainty about the proper role of
government in crises such as these.
Historians increasingly see the term totalitarian as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful
analyses of them.
The terms totalitarian and totalitarianism have a winding history. In 1922 King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy appointed Benito
Mussolini, leader of the Italian fascist party, as prime minister. In subsequent years, Mussolini established an authoritarian government
that provided a roadmap for other twentieth century dictators, including Adolf Hitler, and made the term fascist an enduring descriptor
of right-wing authoritarianism. A year after Mussolini's appointment, Giovanni Amendola, a journalist and politician opposed to fascism,
used the term totalitario , or totalitarian, to describe how the fascists presented two largely identical party lists at
a local election, thereby preserving the form of competitive democracy (i.e., offering voters a choice), while, in reality, gutting
it. Other writers soon took up the idea and it became a more generic descriptor of the fascist state's dictatorial powers. Mussolini
himself eventually adopted the term to characterize his government, writing that it described a regime of "all within the state,
none outside the state, none against the state." In the next two decades, the terms began to circulate internationally. Amendola
used them in 1925 to compare Mussolini's government and the young Soviet regime in Moscow. Academics in the English-speaking world
began to employ them in the 1920s and '30s in similar comparative contexts.
In a sign of how much the meaning of the words drifted, however, those who later adopted them into political philosophy did not
necessarily consider fascist Italy to have been totalitarian. Hannah Arendt, for instance, dismissed Mussolini's movement: "The true
goal of Fascism was only to seize power and establish the Fascist 'elite' as uncontested ruler over the country." Even now, scholars
point to the survival of pre-fascist government and bureaucratic structures, as well as lower levels of terror and violence directed
against the populace, as evidence that Mussolini's Italy was not genuinely totalitarian.
Instead, Arendt considered totalitarianism to be a way of understanding fundamental similarities between Stalinism and Hitlerism,
despite their diametrical opposition on the political spectrum. This archetypal comparison remains the bedrock of studies of totalitarian
dictatorship. In Origins of Totalitarianism , Arendt laid out what she saw as its internal dynamic:
Totalitarianism is never content to rule by external means, namely, through the state and a machinery of violence; thanks to
its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in this apparatus of coercion, totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating
and terrorizing human beings from within.
This state of affairs, which Arendt diagnosed as the result of an increasingly atomized society, bears a striking resemblance
to the state described in George Orwell's 1984 (another bestseller in the Trump era). Airstrip One, as Orwell renamed Great
Britain, is dominated by an omniscient Big Brother who sees, hears, and knows all. Through a reform of language, Airstrip One even
tries to make it impossible to think illegal thoughts. Newspeak, it is hoped, "shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because
there will be no words in which to express it." Orwell and Arendt considered the obliteration of the private and internal life of
individuals to be the ne plus ultra of totalitarian rule.
Of course, what Arendt and Orwell described are systems of government that have never actually existed. Neither Nazism nor Stalinism
succeeded in controlling or dominating its citizens from within. Moreover, while later scholarship has partially borne out Arendt's
analysis of National Socialism, her understanding of Stalinist rule has proved less insightful.
The other classic account of totalitarianism is Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy , published in 1956 by Carl Friedrich
and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In it, the political scientists developed a six-point list of criteria by which to recognize totalitarianism:
it has an "elaborate ideology," relies on a mass party, uses terror, claims a monopoly on communication as well as on violence, and
controls the economy. Like Arendt, Friedrich and Brzezinski believed totalitarianism to be a new phenomenon -- to take Gessen's words,
an invention of the twentieth century. Their goal was to understand structural similarities between different modern dictatorships.
Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union -- the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their
comparison as totalitarian really yields interesting insights.
While scholars critiqued Friedrich and Brzezinski's model -- for example, its one-size-fits-all list fails to appreciate these
regimes' dynamism -- the debate over the usefulness of the term totalitarianism continued. In the decades since, historians and political
scientists have gone back and forth, defining the concept in new ways and showing how those definitions fail in one way or another.
But, at base, these definitions have typically assumed, in the words of historian Ian Kershaw, a "total claim" made on the part
of the totalitarian state over those it rules. That is, Arendt's basic characterization -- that totalitarian regimes aspire to total
control over the public, private, and internal lives of their citizens -- continues to inform scholarly debate.
Arendt's, I would venture, is also the term's folk definition: that is, in people's minds, totalitarianism distinguishes a subset
of authoritarian regimes that seek to (and perhaps even sometimes succeed at) dominating the individual in every conceivable way.
China's new social credit score, which curtails the rights of people who engage in so-called antisocial behaviors, is a current example
of this sort of thing. It is also a clear illustration of the role technology plays in totalitarian fantasies. But China's government
also has many other characteristics, such as a market economy, that traditional understandings of totalitarianism explicitly reject.
This pared-down definition of totalitarianism is still only of dubious utility. Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union --
the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their comparison as "totalitarian" really yields interesting
insights. Studies of everyday life in both countries have underscored the limits of the totalitarian model. These revisionist histories,
in the words of Soviet historian Sheila Fitzpatrick, "introduced into Soviet history the notions of bureaucratic and professional
interest groups and institutional and center-periphery conflict, and they were particularly successful at demonstrating inputs from
middle levels of the administrative hierarchy and professional groups. They were alert to what would now be called questions of agency."
Similarly nuanced approaches to Nazism have uncovered ways power worked within the regime that throw the totalitarian hypothesis
into doubt.
In my own area of research, Germany after World War II, totalitarianism plays a fraught role. During the Cold War and its immediate
aftermath, politicians, journalists, and scholars all painted East Germany as a totalitarian government on par with the Nazi state.
But that characterization is simply wrong. For instance, the East German and Nazi secret police forces, the Stasi and the Gestapo,
functioned in fundamentally different ways. The Gestapo was a relatively small organization that relied on thousands of spontaneous
denunciations. It practiced brutal torture and was embedded in a system of extralegal justice that was responsible for the murder
of hundreds of thousands of German citizens (not to mention the millions more killed in the Holocaust). The Stasi was quite different.
It employed a vast bureaucracy -- three times larger than the Gestapo in a population four times smaller -- and cultivated an even
larger network of collaborators. Around 5 percent of East Germans are estimated to have worked for the Stasi at some point, blurring
the lines between persecutors and persecuted. Against those unlucky enough to wind up in a Stasi prison, the secret police employed
methods of psychological torture. But it never induced the same level of terror as did the Gestapo. Nor was it responsible for anywhere
near the same number of deaths. For most East Germans, the Stasi's presence was more of a nuisance -- a "scratchy undershirt," historian
Paul Betts argues.
Of course, the Stasi's ubiquity and its vast surveillance apparatus have equally been taken as proof that the totalitarian hypothesis
does indeed apply to East Germany. But there is ample evidence that East Germans enjoyed robust private lives, along with a sense
of individual self. East Germans wrote millions of petitions to their government, for instance, complaining about everything from
vacations to apartments. They showed up to quiz members of parliament about government policy. When the regime tried to outlaw public
nudity in the 1950s, as historian Josie McLellan has described, East Germans disobeyed, protested, and eventually forced the government
to relent. Kristen Ghodsee, among others, has
contended
that in many ways life was better for women in Eastern Bloc countries than in the West. And the dictatorship never tried to bring
the Protestant Church, to which millions of East Germans belonged, under its full control. My
own research
reveals that gay liberation activists were able to pressure the dictatorship to make significant policy changes.
In short, whatever criteria one uses to define totalitarianism, East Germany does not fit. It was a dictatorship, but certainly
not a totalitarian one. In fact, the classification of East Germany has proved such a nettlesome problem, it has spawned a veritable
cottage industry of neologisms. Scholars describe it, variously, as a welfare dictatorship, a participatory dictatorship, a thoroughly
dominated society, a modern dictatorship, a tutelary state, and a late totalitarian patriarchal and surveillance state.
If the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any contemporary
society be described as other than totalitarian?
This brings us back to current usage. The problem is that the term totalitarian fulfills two quite different purposes. The first,
as just discussed, is taxonomic: for scholars, it has helped frame an effort to understand the nature of various twentieth-century
regimes. And in this function, it finally seems to be reaching the end of its useful life.
But the term's other purpose is ideological and pejorative, the outgrowth of a Cold War desire to classify fascist and communist
dictatorships as essentially the same phenomenon. To catalog a state as totalitarian it to say it is radically other, sealed off
from the liberal, capitalist, democratic order that we take to be normal. When we call a state totalitarian, we are saying that its
goals are of a categorically different sort than those of our own government -- that it seeks, as Gessen suggests, to destroy human
dignity.
The ideological work that the term totalitarian performs is significant, providing a sleight-of-hand by which to both condemn
foreign regimes and deflect criticism of the regime at home. By claiming that dictatorship and democracy are not simply opposed but
categorically different, it disables us from recognizing the democratic parts of dictatorial rule and the authoritarian aspects of
democratic rule, and thus renders us less capable of effectively diagnosing problems in our own society.
We love to denounce foreign dictatorships. George W. Bush invented the "
Axis of Evil ," for example, to provide a ready
supply of villains. These "totalitarian" regimes -- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- we were told, all threatened our freedoms. But
the grouping was always nonsensical, as the regimes bore few similarities to one another. While Iran, in particular, is authoritarian,
it also bears hallmarks of pluralistic democracy. Pointing out the latter does not diminish the former -- rather it helps us understand
how and why the Islamic Republic has shown such tenacity and staying power. To simply call such regimes totalitarian not only misses
the point, but also whitewashes American complicity in creating and propping up authoritarian regimes -- Iran not least of all. Indeed,
the United States supported a number of the past century's most brutal right-wing dictatorships.
Moreover, by thinking of totalitarianism as something that happens elsewhere, in illiberal, undemocratic places, we ignore the
ways in which our government can and has behaved in authoritarian ways within our own country. Black Americans experienced conditions
of dictatorial rule in the Jim Crow South and under slavery, to name but the most prominent examples.
The language of totalitarianism thus obscures how dictatorship and democracy exist on the same spectrum. It is imperative that
we come to a clearer understanding of the fact that hybrid forms of government exist which combine elements of both. These managed
democracies, to take political theorist Sheldon Wolin's term -- from Putin's Russia, to Viktor Orbán's Hungary, to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's
Turkey -- have hallmarks of democratic republics and use a combination of new and old methods to enforce something akin
to one-party rule. These states are certainly not totalitarian, but neither are they democracies.
Likewise, the Republican Party's efforts to manage U.S. democracy through gerrymandering and voter suppression is similar to Putin's,
Orbán's, and Erdoğan's tactics of securing political power. Its strategies push the republic further toward the authoritarian end
of the political spectrum. And, indeed, the sophisticated data-mining techniques of
Cambridge Analytica , which assisted
the 2016 Trump campaign to manipulate voter choices, would have made the Stasi, the Gestapo, or the NKVD green with envy.
In fact, if the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any
contemporary society be described as anything other than totalitarian? What, after all, does agency mean in a world in which Facebook
aspires to know what we want before we know it ourselves or in a country in which the NSA collects vast troves of data on our own
citizens? To my mind, totalitarianism's usefulness as a distinctive category of government simply evaporates when we begin to look
at all the ways in which technology has compromised individual privacy and agency in the twenty-first century.
Fear of totalitarianism gives the right cover to denounce measures to control the virus: if freedom means freedom from government,
then the worst government is one that makes a total claim on its citizens, even in the interest of saving them from a plague.
Use of the term also prevents us from thinking productively about COVID-19 and how governments ought to respond to it. For a state
of quarantine necessarily forces everyone to give up -- whether voluntarily or no -- their rights of movement, assembly, and, to
some extent, expression. It requires the private choices individuals make -- whether to have friends over for dinner, go on a morning
jog, or buy groceries -- to become public in painful and sometimes even embarrassing ways. Technology companies are
starting to employ their products' tracking features to trace the virus's spread, an application that many
worry
poses an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Yet, the destruction of the private sphere in the interest of the public good is precisely what theorists tell us lies at the
heart of totalitarianism. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben made precisely this point,
arguing recently that the extraordinary
response to COVID-19 is totalitarian: "The disproportionate reaction . . . is quite blatant. It is almost as if with terrorism exhausted
as a cause for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic offered the ideal pretext for scaling them up beyond any limitation."
Of course, we now know the measures the Italian government introduced went neither far nor fast enough. Now there are over 160,000
confirmed cases in Italy and over 20,000 confirmed deaths from the virus.
The confusion the idea of totalitarianism sows over responses in the United States has also been evident since last month. On
March 22, right-wing commentator Andrew Napolitano
asserted
that measures to combat COVID-19 were motivated by "totalitarian impulses." Meanwhile, state officials have been busy
postponing primary
elections, a measure that under normal circumstances would undoubtedly be denounced as totalitarian in nature.
If we are going to arrive at a more sophisticated answer to the question of how to govern democratically in the twenty-first century,
we must begin by acknowledging that all modern governments attempt to control and influence the lives of their citizens, and all
governments make use of exceptional powers to combat crises. The problem with the idea of totalitarianism is that it makes no accommodation
for the reasons behind such exercise of coercive power.
It is, of course, quite right to worry about Donald Trump's response to the virus. His dilly-dallying, his narcissism, and his
inability to take responsibility for anything may
cost
one hundred thousand or more lives. Commentators like Krugman are correct, insofar as Trump and his cronies are indeed trying to
use the crisis to cement their authority. But the ways they are going about it are not totalitarian in any sense of the word. In
fact, the idea of totalitarianism, as commentators such as Napolitano reveal, gives the radical right cover to denounce measures
to control the virus. It is the last stage in the late-twentieth-century neoliberal critique of government: if freedom is only ever
freedom from government interference, then the worst form of government is that which makes a total claim on its citizens, even in
the interest of saving them from a plague. Thinking in terms of totalitarianism -- instead of the broader and more flexible term
authoritarianism -- leads one into such frustrating mental thickets, in which democratic policies can plausibly be denounced as totalitarian.
These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance
in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments
to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from
ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold
War.
I've become convinced the next major event that'll be used to further centralize power and
escalate domestic authoritarianism will center around U.S.-China tensions. We haven't
witnessed this "event" yet, but there's a good chance it'll occur within the next year or
two. Currently, the front runner appears to be a major aggressive move by China into Hong
Kong, but it could be anything really. Taiwan, the South China Sea, currency, economic or
cyber warfare; the flash points are numerous and growing by the day. Something is going to
snap and when it does we better be prepared to not act like mindless imbeciles for the fourth
time this century.
When that day arrives, and it's likely not too far off, certain factions will try to sell
you on the monstrous idea that we must become more like China to defeat China. We'll be told
we need more centralization, more authoritarianism, and less freedom and civil liberties or
China will win. Such talk is nonsense and the wise way to respond is to reject the worst
aspects of the Chinese system and head the other way.
As the clownish farce that is Russiagate slinks back into the psyop dumpster from which it
emerged, an even more destructive narrative has metastasized following the U.S. government's
incompetent response to covid-19.
It was clear to me from the start that Russiagate was a nonsensical narrative wildly
embraced by a variety of powerful people in the wake of Trump's election merely to serve their
own ends. For establishment Democrats, it was a way to pretend Hillary Clinton didn't actually
lose because she was a wretched status quo candidate with a destructive track record, but she
lost due to "foreign meddling." This allowed those involved in her campaign to deflect blame,
but it also short-circuited any discussion of the merits of populism and widespread voter
dissatisfaction (within both parties) percolating throughout the land. It was a fairytale
invented by people intentionally putting their heads in the sand in order to avoid
confrontation with political reality and to keep their cushy gravy-train of entrenched
corruption going.
Russiagate was likewise embraced by the national security state (imperial apparatus) for
similar reasons. Like establishment Democrats, the national security state also wanted to
prevent the narrative that the status quo was rejected in the 2016 election from spreading. It
was incentivized to pretend Hillary's loss was the result of gullible Americans being duped by
crafty Russians in order to manufacture the idea that U.S. society was healthy and normal if
not for some external enemy.
Another primary driver for the national security state was to punish Russia for acting like
a sovereign state as opposed to a colony of U.S. empire in recent years. Russia has been an
increasingly serious thorn in the side of unipolarism advocates over the past decade by
performing acts such as buying gold, providing safe harbor for Edward Snowden, and thwarting
the dreams of regime change in Syria. Such acts could not go unpunished.
So Russiagate served its purpose. It wasted our time for much of Trump's first term and it
helped prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. Now we get Chinagate.
When the premier empire on the planet starts blaming external enemies for its internal
problems, you know it's almost always an excuse to let your own elites off the hook and further
erode civil liberties. While it appears the novel coronavirus covid-19 did in fact come from
China, and China tried to discourage other countries from taking decisive action in the early
days, our internal political actors blaming China for their own lack of preparation and timely
reaction is patently ridiculous.
The entire world saw China shutdown the entire city of Wuhan shuttering factories and the
economy. Anyone with two eyes and half a brain could see they were ACTING as if this were
very serious. I bought masks, hand sanitizer, lysol wipes at the end of January. Why didn't
State? https://t.co/oECvvxbV0K
If Stacy and myself were able to see the situation clearly and respond early, why couldn't
our government? This isn't rocket science. The Chinese were acting as if the world had ended in
cities across the country and we're supposed to believe U.S. leaders simply listened to what
the CCP was saying as opposed to what they were doing? How does that make any sense?
It makes even less sense considering the Trump administration has been in an explicit cold
war with China for almost two years. This concept that the American national security state
just took China's word for what was going on in the early days is preposterous. So what's going
on here? Similar to Russiagate, the increased focus on directing our ten minutes of hate at the
Chinese provides cover for the elites, but Chinagate is far more dangerous because the
narrative will prove far more convincing for many Americans.
Although Russiagate was rapidly embraced by people with severe Trump Derangement Syndrome,
most people just didn't buy into it or care. Only the most dimwitted amongst us actually
believed the Russians were responsible for our major problems at home, but when it comes to
China the argument can be far more persuasive because many aspects of the economic relationship
between the U.S. and China are in fact problematic. Specifically, the U.S. transformed itself
from a nation of producers and builders into a nation of debt-driven consumption slaves over
the past five decades. While China played a key role in this process, it wasn't the driver.
Did China force the U.S. to abandon gold convertibility in 1971, thus beginning the
transition from an industrial empire into a financial one? Did China convince us to repeal
Glass-Steagall, or lie about WMD in Iraq? Did China put a gun to our manufacturing executives'
heads and force them to offshore manufacturing, or did the executives do that with greed filled
eyes while earning billions upon billions from labor arbitrage? China may have directly
benefited from five decades of avarice-driven policy crimes committed by American "elites," but
they didn't cause them. They are entirely homegrown.
Yep, the only people who benefit from the external enemy obsession are the people who
actually wrecked this country.
Chinagate is far more dangerous than Russiagate because very serious fundamental problems
within the U.S.-China economic relationship do exist. I don't deny this, and I'm in favor of
actual policies that would incentivize the American people to become producers and builders as
opposed to castrated debt zombies. The problem is many of the people ratcheting up the volume
on the evils of China (I don't deny the abundance of evil) aren't interested in bringing
liberty and production back to America. Rather, they're trying to take away more of your
freedoms, economically and politically.
Wall Street and the national security state (empire) ransacked and hollowed out this
country. It wasn't your neighbor, it wasn't immigrants and it wasn't an external enemy.
The same people who've been in charge of the country for the entire 21st century remain in
charge. Presidential politics is pure theater in an empire. Think about it, the same people who
brought you endless war, the surveillance panopticon and perpetual Wall Street crime and
bailouts are supposed to take on China? The same China that made so many of them fabulously
wealthy? Give me a fucking break.
The elitist agenda isn't to use anger at China to bring freedom and production to our
shores, but to use heightened emotional fear to tighten their domestic power grip. The idea is
to use Chinese authoritarianism as a model for the U.S.
The post covid-19 elitist wet dream here is pretty transparent. Convince everyone to be a
compliant farm animal on an imperial plantation.
Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are already coming out of their snake holes to advocate
for exactly that. We saw this a few days ago when Harvard Law Professor and former George W.
Bush administration lawyer, Jack Goldsmith, explicitly
called for Chinese-like censorship of speech on the internet.
In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network,
China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and
speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and
governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is
compatible with a society's norms and values.
By all means advocate for a reshuffling of the relationship between the U.S. and China that
will lead to more freedom, resilience and economic vitality at home and I'll support it, but
don't tell me we need to become China in order to defeat China. If we're dumb enough to fall
for that, we'll get exactly what we deserve. Good and hard.
* * *
Liberty Blitzkrieg is an ad-free website. If you enjoyed this post and my work in general,
visit the Support Page where you can
donate and contribute to my efforts.
Stalin might have thwarted Zionist ambitions in the past but Nikita Khrushchev went some
way in giving hope when he arbitrarily decided to make Crimea part of Ukraine. This decision
was never put to the vote in the Supreme Soviet in 1954, for obvious reason: the legislators
would never have agreed to pass it.
What motivated Khrushchev to make such a decision will perhaps never be known, though I
know this may have been much discussed in past MoA comments forums or other comments forums I
have visited. The water pipeline reason (water was being piped to Crimea from Russia through
Ukraine, and making Crimea part of Ukraine helped simplify the administrative paperwork and
communication) has been discussed as has also the possibility that Khrushchev wanted to
thwart separatist tendencies in Ukraine - the CIA and MI6 had agents including the notorious
Stepan Bandera active in western Ukraine at the time - by adding Crimea with its population
of people identifying as Russian to the Soviet Republic.
@ 54 Grieved and @ 62 Jen - you piqued my interest. I just looked Crimea up in my copy of
Khrushchev Remembers. Page 260 "Once the Ukraine had been liberated, a paper was drafted by
members of the Lozovsky committee.
It was addressed to Stalin and contained a proposal the the Crimea be made a Jewish Soviet
Republic within the Soviet Union after the deportation from the Crimea of the Crimean Tatars.
Stalin saw behind this proposal the hand of American Zionists operating through the
Sovinformbureau.
The Committee members, he declared, were agents of American Zionism. They were trying to
set up a Jewish state in the Crimea in order to wrest the Crimea away form the Soviet Union
and to establish an outpost of American imperialism on our shores which would be a direct
threat to the security of the Soviet Union."
"... I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect, international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English Language then it can say anything and do anything. ..."
"... The power of the United States is rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. ..."
"... Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas about human inequality. ..."
... is that akin to the portion of a George Carlin comedy sketch ?
"From 1778 to 1871, the United States government
entered into more than 500 treaties with
the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated
in some way or outright broken by the US government,
while at least one treaty was violated
or broken by Native American tribes."
The EU rapprochement with Iran is all about the huge market the EU wants. Their interest in
the JCPOA was always about Iran developing, and the EU benefiting for its trade and
investment potential.
Crippling Iran again with snapback sanctions certainly would end Iran-EU relations for a
decade or longer.
With the EU economy in the toilet due to the pandemic, now more than ever the EU needs
Iran free of sanctions, not laden with crippling new ones.
Only one country benefits from the economic strangulation of Iran--Israel.
In these times of memory holes, sometimes it pays to remember:
As much as I'd like to be optimistic that justice might actually be served for both
Epstein and his myriad clients/co-conspirators, I think the powers-that-be will again
squash this - or liquidate Epstein - before things get out of hand for them.
The American justice system has been corrupted in much the same way the political
system has been, and it's primary objective is to protect the rulers from the common
folk, not to actually deliver true justice.
I'll watch with anticipation, but I haven't had any satisfaction from either a
political or justice perspective since at least the 2000 coup d'etat, so I won't hold my
breath this time.
Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch,
where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military
occupation.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176686/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_trump%27s_own_military_mafia_/
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
Before any aggression, the United States want Iran to be hermetically sealed with sanction
just like Iraq was before our invasion. Everybody knows the US's intentions because we've
seen it before. There will be NO domestic support for war on Iran as Americans die due to
no public healthcare and massive unemployment and poverty. Iran and the Middle East view a
war on Iran as an Israeli wet dream. Israel is viewed as the intellectual author of
aggression against Iran, and Iran will respond appropriately. So, is AIPAC willing to get
Israel destroyed? Is AIPAC on a suicide mission? Looks that way.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are de facto allies aiming to carve up the entire Middle East
between them. Forget about Sunni / Shia / Hebrew, that is a manufactured excuse to war for
resources (oil first, then water).
Proof? Mutual "enemies" (oil-rich Iran and Syria, which is the nexus for pipelines) and
mutual ally (Uncle Sam). Also not a single complaint from Israel over the $100b US-Saudi
Arms deal. As to Palestine, that is a human rights issue and has no weight because water is
not recognized as a strategic resource (yet).
I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect,
international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English
Language then it can say anything and do anything.
"The Iranians are not helping the Palestinians one iota. They are splitting the
opposition."
Glasshopper@29
Whoever has been helping Hezbollah has been helping the Palestinians. And whoever has
been holding Syria together, despite the pressure of the imperialists and their sunni-state
puppets, has also been helping the Palestinians by bringing some kind of balance into
regional power calculations.
It is imperative that Iran continues not only to provide political support to the
Palestinian cause but to democratise the Gulf, to the extent of bringing about the demise
of the autocracies, and the Arabian world generally.
Israel has already exerted its maximum influence. The power of the United States is
rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class
fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. (There will be no war to
divert attention from the crisis.) And Israel will be left to solve its own problems as its
'allies' find themselves increasingly pre-occupied with real problems.
Supporting Israel and building it up as an imperialist base has been part of an era in
which the empire was hegemonic and thus able to define international events in terms of
domestic politics.
That era has ended. The USA is still powerful but it is no longer anything more than one
of the major participants in geopolitical competition. Even to maintain its position it is
going to have to do, what other powers have done and concentrate its resources on its real
needs.
Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the
tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas
about human inequality. Israel has one choice, to divest itself of its fascist
government and its fascistic culture and seek accommodation within the neighbourhood or to
wither away as its population emigrates leaving only the committed fascists to play with
Armageddon.
Long before that happens the imperialists will have taken its weapons away from it.
It may very well be the case that the ordinary Iranian is no more committed to fighting
on behalf of Palestinians than the average American is committed to risking all, or
anything, for the sake of Israel. But Iran's commitment to Palestine is a powerful
political statement and one that counters the divisive tactics of the wahhabis and their
imperial friends. Iran has taken up the mantle that Nasser briefly wore, in the vanguard of
a muslim and Arab nationalist movement. This makes it very difficult for the sunni tyrants
actually to commit forces to defend Israel or attack Iran. Their duplicity is a measure of
their own weakness.
Does anyone imagine that the pro-Israeli policies pursued by the Sauds are actually
popular? The Gulf and Saudi policies of sucking up to Israel are far more damaging to them
than Iran's stance is to it.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
Iran should sign a peace deal with the Israelis.
Posted by: Glasshopper | Apr 27 2020 16:42 utc | 8
Some people should stick to what they do well, like hopping on glass. A simple
observation: peace deal with "the Israelis" is not possible. Gulfie princes tried. No
cigar. They genuinely tried to be nice with Israel, out of "anti-Semitic delusion that Jews
control USA". I conjecture that Glasshopper made a similar assumption -- why would Iran
consider a "peace deal with the Israelis" if its direct conflict is with USA (and the
Gulfies)? How it would help them unless "Jews control USA"?
As a mental experiment, let Grasshopper sketch a putative "deal with Israelis". Kushner
plan?
@70 BraveNewWorld, you haven't added up the numbers correctly. Take China, Russia and Iran
out of the equation leaves you with five (including the EU as a whole, which is not a
given). Take the USA out as well and it doesn't matter how sycophantic the Europeans are,
Pompeo can only muster four votes.
And he needs five to refer the issue to the UNSC.
That's why Pompous wants to waddle his way back in: no matter which way he looks at
this, without the USA sitting at the table he is one-short.
Actually, I've just read the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231 and neither has any mention of
a "majority vote" requirement for a referral to the UNSC for a vote on "snapping back"
sanctions. It appears that any one JCPOA participant can refer the issue of alleged
non-compliance to the UNSC, provided that they first exhaust the Joint Commission dispute
mechanism.
But I do note this in the JCPOA (my bold): "Upon receipt of the notification from the
complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith
efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this
JCPOA , the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a
resolution to continue the sanctions lifting"
Seems to me that there is a procedural "out" there for the UN Secretariat i.e. it may
use that highlighted section to decide that the participant is a vexatious litigant whose
participation in the Joint Commission was not in good faith, ergo, the UN can refuse to
even take receipt of the complaint.
Everything else then becomes moot.
The USA would raise merry-hell, sure, it would. But that would be no more outrageous a
ploy by the UN than was the USA's own argument that it can have its cake and eat it
too.
After all, if a participant to the JCPOA referred its complaint to the UNSC without
first going through the Joint Commission then it is a given that the UNSC is under no
obligation to receive that complaint. No question.
So why can't the UNSC also refuse to accept a complaint when it is clear that the
complainant has not gone through the Joint Commission process in "good faith"?
One for the lawyers and ambassadors to argue, I would suggest, but it is not a given
that the USA can ram this through even if everyone were to agree that it were still a
participant in the JCPOA.
@61 Arch: "This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA
in detail"
Arch, the crux of that CRS legal paper boils down to this:
.."under current domestic law, the President may possess authority to terminate U.S.
participation in the JCPOA and to re-impose U.S. sanctions on Iran, either through
executive order or by declining to renew statutory waivers"..
All the other fluff in that paper is inconsequential compared to this question posed by
that quote: can the US claim to be half-pregnant?
I suspect not.
Note that at the time the CRS paper was written (May 2018) it did have a valid point
i.e. while Trump *had* refused to re-certify Iranian compliance, he had *not* reimposed US
sanctions on Iran, and so the CRS paper could credibly argue that Trump wasn't pregnant, he
just talking dirty to the Congress.
But that was then, and this is now, and - as b points out - Executive Order 13846 is the
smoking gun because in it Trump is OFFICIALLY stating that he has decided to " cease the
participation of the United States in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ".
That EO is clearly the killing blow to Pompeo's nonsense, and even the CRS legal paper
you linked to would agree.
As I see it, the historical problem with European fascism has been that when push comes to
shove the knife comes out and its either give in to enforced collaboration or take a
stabbing, it's your choice. Even if that means helping murder millions of your neighbours
or being murdered. As Celan said "Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland."
The US has been enforcing a morally sanitised Disney Adult version of this old world
order since at least the 2003 Supreme Crime of Aggression against Iraq. Sooner or later as
this global pandemic, political, and financial crisis unfolds, the US leaders will be
forced to choose whether or not the UN is a viable vehicle through which to continue the
elite lunatic project for planetary full spectrum dominance of 21st C financial and
military affairs.
So I reckon the Pentagon at some point either gets to finally execute the long awaited
'Operation Conquer Persia' or the politicians and their chickenhawk ideologues will back
off again and continue the death by a thousand cuts of the last 40 years. I'd probably bet
the latter but that's the trouble with genuine psychopaths, push comes to shove they will
go for it if they think they'll get away with it.
This last 2 decades has been like watching a reality TV series about a fat drunken
psychopath with a bloody knife going around and stabbing people at a party, but now the
psycho is starting to stagger and everyone in the house is watchful trying to keep their
distance. House rules are that anyone starts an actual fight to the death with the psycho
then everyone dies!
I more or less trust that if we ever get there, a multipolar world order won't collapse
into outright fascism but we're closer to collapse every year, especially from this year
on, and most especially in the Persian Gulf.
In current US political system, it is not necessary to propose a valid claim, or proposal
or argument - they intend to act from a position of authority. They know where you live.
I am a retired Teamster in Syracuse, New York, who joined the civil rights, antiwar, and
environmental movements as a teenager in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960s. In 1984, I
co-founded the Green Party. In 2010, I was the first U.S. candidate to campaign for a Green
New Deal in the first of three campaigns for New York governor that won Green Party ballot
lines.
To end the climate crisis, I have detailed an Ecosocialist Green New Deal to create 38
million new jobs, 100% clean energy, and zero carbon emissions by 2030.
To end poverty and economic insecurity, I propose an Economic Bill of Rights: job
guarantee, guaranteed minimum income, affordable housing, improved Medicare for all,
tuition-free public education pre–K to college, and secure retirement by doubling
Social Security.
To end endless wars, I support 75% military spending cuts, U.S. troops home, diplomacy,
international law, human rights, and a Global Green New Deal.
To end the new nuclear arms race, I favor no first use, minimum credible deterrent, and
ratification of the new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.
I support unions, $20 minimum wage, worker co-ops, public banks, public energy, public
railroads, progressive taxation, net neutrality, internet privacy, ending mass surveillance,
no nukes, no fracking, abortion rights, student and medical debt relief, decriminalizing
drugs, ending mass incarceration, police under community control, immigrant amnesty,
African-American reparations, Indian and Mexican-American treaty rights, whistleblower and
political prisoner pardons, and presidential elections by National Popular Vote using
Ranked-Choice Voting. [Ranked Choice Voting is a huge fraud -- which many well-meaning people
fall for]
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The U.S. did not liberate Europe from fascism. The Soviet Union did that. Between 1942 and
1945 it destroyed the German Wehrmacht on the eastern front. One can reasonably argue that
D-Day and the U.S. invasion of occupied France in June 1944 was a mere diversion for the much
larger Operation
Bagration the USSR was launching in the east.
And what please has the U.S. led but the wars on Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous other countries?
Instead of defending democracy on the continent the U.S. launched coup after coup whenever
majorities in Greece, Italy or other countries voted for too leftish parties. And who by the
way helped to hold up Spain's fascist dictatorship under Franco?
Then this:
There is a special irony: Germany and South Korea, both products of enlightened postwar
American leadership, have become potent examples of best practices in the coronavirus
crisis.
The "postwar American leadership" killed 20% of all Koreans and supported fascist
dictatorships in South Korea up to 1987. It has since opposed any South Korean leader who has
tried to make peace with North Korea. What please was "enlightened" in that.
Someone should tell that ignorant and uneducated claptrap writer that the
U.S. hegemonic 'leadership' is over and that the world has sound reasons to be happy
about that:
Many defenders of U.S. hegemony insist that the "liberal international order" depends on
it. That has never made much sense. For one, the continued maintenance of American hegemony
frequently conflicts with the rules of international order. The hegemon reserves the right
to interfere anywhere it wants, and tramples on the sovereignty and legal rights of other
states as it sees fit. In practice, the U.S. has frequently acted as more of a rogue in its
efforts to "enforce" order than many of the states it likes to condemn. The most vocal
defenders of U.S. hegemony are unsurprisingly some of the biggest opponents of
international law -- at least when it gets in their way.
The relative decline of the U.S. is not a new development. It has been visible to outside
observes for more than 20 years. But it is only now that some of the delusions that
Hollywood, main stream media and the establishment have held up for the last 20 years are
finally falling away.
More such delusions will be buried when the extent of the new great depression the
pandemic will cause becomes more visible.
Posted by b on April 24, 2020 at 17:23 UTC | Permalink
The most important book on the Soviet Union's victorious efforts in WW2 is Richard
Overy's, Russia's War: A History of the Soviet War Effort.
It is unsurpassed in English-language historiography. Overy's conclusion is correct: "the
Soviet war effort remains an incomparable achievement, world-historical in a very real
sense." (Page 327).
Overy also makes clear that the Soviet Union inflicted "80 per cent of [German] battle
casualties." (Page 327) And it was on the Eastern Front "that the overwhelming weight of the
Wehrmacht was concentrated until 1944." (Pages 327-8)
Nazi-German munitions production share: 57-60% for air&sea warfare, only 30-33% for land
warfare. Luftwaffe combat losses: 75% against western allies, 25% in eastern front. Losses of
Kriegsmarine: 90-92% against western allied. German AA-artillery: 12-14% in Eastern Front.
German concrete shelter construction (4.5 bn RM in 1943): 80% targeting western allied
strategic air war.
All in all. Majority of German munition production was not targeting Eastern Front war. In
fact 60% if not even 65% went to war against western allied. Why German war machine collapsed
in east? Because 83% of Jagdwaffe from late 1943 was NOT in east.
If eastern front was "main front" then why great majority of German war effort
(production, resources) was not targeting was against Soviet U?
Losing 14,600,000 soldiers deceased in 1941-45 was likely not best proof of "effective"
Soviet Red Army (and 167,976 in Winter Was against Finns 1939-40). Pyrrhic victory playing
certain role in process of collapse of Soviet Union. Even marshal Zhukov admitted in early
1960's that without western aid "we won't have been able to create our strategic reserves"
and "continued the war".
So - did Soviet U really liberate Europe or was it Uncle Sam giving tools to do it? Soviet
blood and western technology?
Ernesto is very wrong on the most important points.
In the east, Germany and her allies had 228 divisions, compared with 58 divisions in the
west, only 15 of which were in the area of the Normandy battle in its initial stages.
Furthermore, more manpower and anti-aircraft artillery were deployed against bombing in
the Reich than were available in France.
The German army was well aware of the greater threat: the revived Soviet war machine.
Finally, there was no major movement of manpower westward to cope with the invasion of
France. And the Allied bridgehead in Normandy was contained, though not eliminated, with the
troops already there.
Based on my reading of popular news outlets and essays, speeches, the current term "liberal
international order" was born out of anti-Russian propaganda. The Russians were not only out
to get a few enemy countries (and Hillary personally), but was a civilizational threat. The
term basically means the US and its European lackey allies. It is self promoting PR against
the anti-Western imperialist Slavic and now Asiatic East.
I believe that much of the anti-Russian propaganda has its echoes if not origins in German
Nazi propaganda. The Nazis (and indeed their current brethren spread across Europe and North
America) believed that the Jews were not only trying to destroy Germany (America), but also
trying destroy the entirety of European civilization (EU). Which in current terms is the
liberal international order. This term helps justify the hysterical anti-Russian rants in the
mass media of North America and the EU. This is an old anti-Semitic narrative updated.
We live at a time when the terrors of life suggests the world has descended into darkness.
The COVID-19 crisis has created a dystopian nightmare which floods our screens and media with
images of fear. Bodies, doorknobs, cardboard packages, plastic bags, and the breath we exhale
and anything else that offers the virus a resting place is comparable to a bomb ready to
explode resulting in massive suffering and untold deaths. We can no longer shake hands, embrace
our friends, use public transportation, sit in a coffee shop, or walk down the street without
experiencing real anxiety and fear. We are told by politicians, media pundits, and others that
everyday life has taken on the character of a war zone.
The metaphor of war has a deep sense of urgency and has a long rhetorical history in times
of crisis. Militarization has become a central feature of the pandemic age and points to the
dominance of warlike values in society. More specifically, Michael Geyer defines it as the
'contradictory and tense social process in which civil society organizes itself for the
production of violence' (Geyer, 1989: 9). Geyer was writing about the militarization of Europe
between 1914-1945, but his description seems even more relevant today. This is clear in the way
right-wing politicians such as Trump promote the increasing militarization of language, public
spaces, and bodies. Terms such as 'war footing', 'mounting an assault', and 'rallying the
troops' have been normalized in the face of the pandemic crisis. At the same time,
the language of war privileges the proliferation of surveillance capitalism, the defense of
borders, and the suspension of civil liberties.
As the virus brings the engines of capitalism to a halt, the discourse of war takes on a new
significance as a medical term that highlights the struggles to grapple with underfunded public
health care systems, the lack of resources for testing, the surge towards downward mobility,
expanding unemployment and the ongoing, heart-wrenching, efforts to provide protective
essentials for front line and emergency workers. At the heart of this epic tragedy is an
understated political struggle to reverse and amend decades of a war waged by neoliberal
capitalism against the welfare state, essential social provisions, public goods, and the social
contract. The failure of this oppressive death-dealing form of casino capitalism can be heard
as Arundhati Roy observes
in:
the stories of overwhelmed hospitals in the US, of underpaid, overworked nurses having to
make masks out of garbage bin liners and old raincoats, risking everything to bring succor to
the sick. About states being forced to bid against each other for ventilators, about doctors'
dilemmas over which patient should get one and which left to die.
The language of war is used by the mandarins of power to both address the indiscriminate
viral pandemic that has brought capitalism to its knees and to reinforce and expand the
political formations and global financial system that are incapable of dealing with the
pandemic. Rather than using rage, emotion, and fear to sharpen our understanding of the
conditions that abetted this global plague and what it might mean to address it and prevent it
in the future, the ruling elite in a number of right wing countries such as the U.S. and Brazil
use the discourse of war either to remove such questions from public debate or dismisses them
as acts of bad faith in a time of crisis. Amartya Sen is right in
arguing that '[o]vercoming a pandemic may look like fighting a war, but the real need is
far from that'.
Instead the language of war creates an echo chamber produced in both the highest circles of
power and the right-wing cultural apparatuses that serve to turn trauma, exhaustion, and
mourning into a fog of conspiracy theories, state repression, and a deepening abyss of darkness
that ' serves the
ends of those in power' . Edward Snowden is right in warning that governments will use the
pandemic crisis to expand their attack on civil liberties, roll back constitutional rights,
repress dissent and create what he calls an '
architecture of oppression' . He
writes :
As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we
also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do
you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the
coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these
datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what' is being built is the
architecture of oppression.
There is no doubt that the Covid-19 crisis will test the limits of democracy worldwide.
Right-wing movements, neo-Nazis, authoritarian politicians, religious fundamentalists and a
host of other extremists are energized by what Slavoj Zizek
calls the 'ideological viruses [lying] dormant in our societies'. These include closing of
borders, the quarantining of so-called enemies, the claim that undocumented immigrants spread
the virus, the demand for increased police power, and the rush by religious fundamentalists to
relegate women to the home to assume their 'traditional' gendered role.
On the economic level and under the cover of fear, the U.S. in particular, is transferring
what Jonathan
Cook refers to as:
huge sums of public money to the biggest corporations. Politicians controlled by big
business and media owned by big business are pushing through this corporate robbery without
scrutiny – and for reasons that should be self-explanatory. They know our attention is
too overwhelmed by the virus for us to assess intentionally mystifying arguments about the
supposed economic benefits, about yet more illusory trickle-down.
This constitutes a politics of 'opportunistic authoritarianism' and is already in play in a
number of countries that are using the cover of enforcing public health measures to enforce a
range of anti-democratic policies and wave of repression. The pandemic has made clear that
market mechanisms cannot address the depth and scope of the current crisis. The failure of
neoliberalism not only reveals a profound sense of despair and moral void at the heart of
casino capitalism, but also makes clear that the spell of neoliberalism is broken and as such
is in the midst of a legitimation crisis. The coronavirus pandemic has both made clear that the
neoliberal notion that all problems are a matter of individual responsibility and that each of
us are defined exclusively by our self-interest has completely broken down as the effects of
neoliberalism's failure to deal with the pandemic unfold in shortages in crucial medical
equipment, lack of testing, and failed public health services, largely due to austerity
measures.
One consequence the failed neoliberal state is an uptake in levels of oppression in order to
prevent the emergence of massive protests movements and radical forms of collective resistance.
The suspension of civil rights, repression of dissent, upending of constitutional liberties,
and the massive use of state surveillance in the service of anti-democratic ends has become
normalized. Many of the countries driven by austerity policies and a culture of cruelty are
using the pandemic crisis as a way shaping their modes of governance by drawing from what
activist Ejeris Dixon calls elements of a '
fascist emergency playbook' . These
include :
Use the emergency to restrict civil liberties -- particularly rights regarding movement,
protest, freedom of the press, a right to a trial and freedom to gather. Use the emergency to
suspend governmental institutions, consolidate power, reduce institutional checks and
balances, and reduce access to elections and other forms of participatory governance. Promote
a sense of fear and individual helplessness, particularly in relationship to the state, to
reduce outcry and to create a culture where people consent to the power of the fascist state;
Replace democratic institutions with autocratic institutions using the emergency as
justification. Create scapegoats for the emergency, such as immigrants, people of color,
disabled people, ethnic and religious minorities, to distract public attention away from the
failures of the state and the loss of civil liberties .
The evidence for the spread of this ideological virus and its apparatuses and polices of
repression are no longer simply dormant fears of those fearful of the rise of authoritarian
movements and modes of governance. For instance, Viktor Orbán, Hungary's prime minister
passed
a bill that gave him 'sweeping emergency powers for an indefinite period of time .The
measures were invoked as part of the government's response to the global pandemic'. What is
becoming obvious is that the pandemic crisis produces mass anxiety that enables governments to
turn a medical crisis into a political opportunity for leaders across the globe to push through
dictatorial powers with little resistance.
For instance, as Selam
Gebrekidan observes : 'In Britain, ministers have what a critic called 'eye-watering' power
to detain people and close borders. Israel's prime minister has shut down courts and begun an
intrusive surveillance of citizens. Chile has sent the military to public squares once occupied
by protesters. Bolivia has postponed elections'. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte,
who has flagrantly violated civil rights in the past, was given emergency powers by the
congress. Under the cloak of invoking public health measures because of the threat posed by the
coronavirus plague, China has broken up protests in Hong Kong and arrested many of its leaders.
In the United States, Trump's Justice Department has asked
Congress 'for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial
during emergencies -- part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads
through the United States'.
In the U.S. Trump blames the media for spreading fake news about the virus, attacks
reporters who ask critical questions, packs the courts with federal sycophants, dehumanizes
undocumented immigrants by labeling them as carriers of the virus, and claims that he has
'total authority' to reopen the economy, however dangerous the policy, in the face of the
coronavirus pandemic. In this instance, Trump markets fear to endorse elements of white
supremacy, ultra-nationalism, and social cleansing while unleashing the mobilizing passions of
fascism. He supports voter suppression and has publicly stated that making it easier to vote
for many Americans such as blacks and other minorities of color would
mean 'you would never have a Republican elected in this country again'. In the midst of
economic hardships and widespread suffering due to the raging pandemic, Trump has tapped into a
combination of fear and a cathartic cruelty while emboldening a savage lawlessness aimed at the
most vulnerable populations. How else to explain his calling the coronavirus the '
Chinese virus' , regardless of the violence it enables by right wingers against
Asian-Americans, or his call to reopen the economy to hastily knowing that thousands could die
as a result, mostly the elderly, poor, and other vulnerable.
Militarizing the Media and the Politics of Pandemic Pedagogy
In the age of the pandemic, culture has been militarized. Donald Trump and the right-wing
media in the United States have both politicized and weaponized the coronavirus pandemic. They
have weaponized it by using a state of emergency to promote Trump's political attacks on
critics, the press, journalists, and politicians who have questioned his bungling response to
the pandemic crisis. They have politicized it by introducing a series of policies under the
rubric of a state of exception that diverts bailout money to the ruling elite, militarizes
public space, increases the power of the police, wages attacks on undocumented immigrants as a
public health threat, and promotes voter suppression. In addition Trump has further
strengthened the surveillance state, fired public servants for participating in the impeachment
process, and initially claimed that the virus was a hoax perpetuated by the media and Democrats
who were trying to undermine Trump's re-election.
Trump's language of dehumanization coupled with his appalling ignorance and toxic
incompetence appears as a perfect fit for the media spectacle that he has made a central
feature of his presidency. Trump's 'anti-intellectualism has been simmering in the United
States for decades and has now fully boiled over' and when incorporated as a central feature of
the right-wing social media becomes 'a tremendously successful tool of hegemonic control,
manipulation, and false consciousness'. Trump's apocalyptic rhetoric appears to match the tenor
of the moment as there is a surge in right-wing extremism, anti-Semitism, explosive racism, and
a culture of lies, immediacy, and cruelty. What we are witnessing as the pandemic intensifies
in the United States, and in some other countries across the globe, is the increasing threat of
authoritarian regimes that both use the media to normalize their actions and wage war against
dissidents and others struggling to preserve democratic ideas and principles.
Given his experience in the realms of Reality TV and celebrity culture,
Trump is driven by mutually reinforcing registers of spectacular fits of self-promotion,
joy in producing troves of Orwellian doublespeak, and the ratings his media coverage receives.
One of the insults he throws out at reporters in his coronavirus
briefings is that their networks have low ratings as if that is a measure of the relevance
of the question being asked. Unlike any other president, Trump has used the mainstream media
and social media to mobilize his followers, attack his enemies, and produce a twitter universe
of misinformation, lies, and civic illiteracy. He has championed the right-wing media by both
echoing their positions on a number of issues and using them to air his own. The conservative
media such as Fox News has been enormously complicitous in justifying Trump's call for the
Justice Department to dig up dirt on his political rivals, including the impeachable offense of
extorting the Ukrainian government through the promise to withhold military aid if they did not
launch an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden. Moreover, they have supported his
instigation of armed rebellions via his tweets urging his followers to liberate Minnesota,
Michigan, and Virginia by refusing to comply with stay-at-home orders and
social distancing restrictions . Ironically, he is urging anti-social distancing protests
that violate his own federal guidelines.
Trump has used the police powers of the state, especially ICE to round up children and
separate them from their parents at the border. Placing loyalty above expertise, he surrounds
himself with incompetent sycophants, and makes policy decisions from his gut, often in
opposition to the advice of public health experts. All of this is echoed and supported by the
conservative and right wing eco-system, especially Fox News, Breitbart News, and what appears
to be a legion of right wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, who falsely claimed the virus
is a common cold and Laura Ingraham, who deceitfully compared Covid-19 to the flu. Fox News not
only produced conspiracy theories such as the claim the virus was the product of the 'deep
state' and was being used by Democrats to prevent Trump from being re-elected, it also produced
misinformation about the virus and represented what 74 journalism professors and leading
journalists described as ' a danger to
public health' . Like most authoritarians, Trump does everything to control the truth by
flooding the media with lies, denouncing scientific evidence, and critical judgment as fake
news. The latter is a direct attack on the free press, critical journalists, and the notion
that the search for the truth is crucial to any valid and shared notion of citizenship.
The crisis of politics is now matched by a mainstream and corporate controlled digital media
and screen culture that revels in political theater, embraces ignorance, fractured narratives,
and racial hysteria (cf. Butsch, 2019). In addition, it authorizes and produces a culture of
sensationalism designed to increase ratings and profits at the expense of truth. As a
disimagination machine and form of pandemic pedagogy, it undermines a complex rendering of
social problems and suppresses a culture of dissent and informed judgments. This pandemic
pedagogy functions so as to shape human agency, desire, and modes of identification both in the
logic of consumerism while privileging a hyper form of masculinity and legitimating a
friend/enemy distinction. We live in an age in which theater and the spectacle of performance
empty politics of any moral substance and contribute to the revival of an updated version of
fascist politics. Thoughtlessness has become a national ideal as the corporate controlled media
mirror the Trump administration demand that reality be echoed rather than be analyzed,
interrogated and critically comprehended. Politics is now leaden with bombast, words strung
together to shock, numb the mind, and images overwrought with self-serving sense of riotousness
and anger. Trump shamelessly reinforces such a politics by showing propaganda videos at
presidential news conferences.
What is distinct about this historical period, especially under the Trump regime, is what
Susan Sontag has called a form of aesthetic fascism with
its contempt of 'all that is reflective, critical, and pluralistic'. One distinctive element of
the current moment is the rise of what we call hard and soft disimagination machines. The hard
disimagination machines, such as Fox News, conservative talk radio, and Breitbart media,
function as overt and unapologetic propaganda machines that trade in nativism,
misrepresentations, and racist hysteria, all wrapped in the cloak of a regressive view of
patriotism.
As
Joel Bleifuss points out , Fox News , in particular, is 'blatant in its contempt for
the truth, and engages nightly in the 'ritual of burying the truth in 'memory holes' and
spinning a new version of reality [that keeps] the spirit of 1984 alive and well . This, the
most-watched cable news network, functions in its fealty to Trump like a real-world Ministry of
Truth from George Orwell's 1984 , where bureaucrats 'rectify' the historical record to
conform to Big Brother's decrees'. Trump's fascist politics and fantasies of
racial purity could not succeed without the disimagination machines, pedagogical
apparatuses, and the practitioners needed to make his 'vision not merely real but grotesquely
normal'. What Trump makes clear is that the weaponization of language into a discourse of
racism and hate is deeply indebted to a politics of forgetting and is a crucial tool in the
battle to undermine historical consciousness and memory itself.
The soft disimagination machines or liberal mainstream media such as NBC Nightly News,
MSNBC, and the established press function largely to cater to Trump's Twitter universe,
celebrity culture, and the cut throat ethos of the market, all the while isolating social
issues, individualizing social problems, and making the workings of power superficially
visible. This is obvious in their mainstream's continuous
coverage of his daily press briefings, which as Oscar Zambrano puts it 'is like watching a
disease in progress that is infecting us all: a parallel to coronavirus' (Zambrano, 2020).
Unfortunately, high ratings are more important than refusing to participate in Trump
disinformation spectacles. Politics as a spectacle saturates the senses with noise, cheap
melodrama, lies, and buffoonery. This is not to suggest that the spectacle that now shapes
politics as pure theater is meant merely to entertain and distract.
On the contrary, the current spectacle, most recently evident in the midst of the
coronavirus crisis functions as a war machine, functioning largely to nurture the notion of war
as a permanent social relation, the primary organizing principle of society and politics merely
one of its means or guises. War has now become the operative and defining feature of language
and the matrix for all relations of power.
The militarization of the media, and culture itself, now function as a form of social and
historical amnesia. That is, in both form and content it separates the past from a politics
that in its current form has turned deadly in its attack on the values and institutions crucial
to a functioning democracy. In this instance, echoes of a fascist past remain hidden, invisible
beneath the histrionic shouting and disinformation campaigns that rail against alleged 'enemies
of the state' and 'fake news', which is a euphemism for dissent, holding power accountable, and
an oppositional media. A flair for the overly dramatic eliminates the distinction between fact
and fiction, lies and the truth.
Under such circumstances, the spectacle of militarization functions as part of a culture of
distraction, division, and fragmentation, all the while refusing to pose the question of how
the United States shares elements of a fascist politics that connects it to a number of other
authoritarian countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. All of these countries in
the midst of the pandemic have embraced a form of fascist aesthetics and politics that combines
a cruel culture of neoliberal austerity with the discourses of hate, nativism, and state
repression. The militarization of culture and the media in its current forms can only appeal to
the state of exception, death, and war. Under such circumstances, the relationship between
civil liberties and democracy, politics and death, and justice and injustice is lost. War
should be a
source of alarm, not pride , and its linguistic repositories should be actively
demilitarized.
Conclusion
Under the Trump regime, historical amnesia is used as a weapon of (mis)education, politics,
and power and is waged primarily through the militarization and weaponization of the media.
This constitutes a form of pandemic pedagogy -- a pedagogical virus that erodes the modes of
agency, values, and civic institutions central to a robust democracy. The notion that the past
is a burden that must be forgotten is a center piece of authoritarian regimes, one that allows
public memory to wither and the threads of fascism to become normalized. While some critics
eschew the comparison of Trump with the Nazi era, it is crucial to recognize the alarming signs
in this administration that echo a fascist politics of the past. As
Jonathan Freedland points out , 'the signs are there, if only we can bear to look'.
Rejecting the Trump-Nazi comparison makes it easier to believe that we have nothing to learn
from history and to take comfort in the assumption that it cannot happen once again. Democracy
cannot survive if it ignores the lessons of the past, reduces education to mass conformity,
celebrates civic illiteracy, and makes consumerism the only obligation of citizenship. Max
Horkheimer added a more specific register to the relationship between fascism and capitalism in
his
comment 'If you don't want to talk about capitalism then you had better keep quiet about
fascism.'
The lessons to be learned from the pandemic crisis have to exceed making visible the lies,
misinformation, and corruption at the heart of the Trump regime. Such an approach fails to
address the most serious of Trump's crimes. Moreover, it fails to examine a number of political
threads that together constitute elements common to a global crisis in the age of the pandemic.
The global response to the pandemic crisis by a number of authoritarian states when viewed as
part of a broader crisis of democracy needs to be analyzed by connecting ideological, economic,
and cultural threads that weave through often isolated issues such as white nationalism, the
rise of a Republican Party dominated by right-wing extremists, the collapse of the two party
system, and the ascent of a corporate controlled media as a disimagination machine and the
proliferation of corrosive systems of power and dehumanization.
Crucial to any politics of resistance is the necessity to take seriously the notion that
education is central to politics itself, and that social problems have to be critically
understood before people can act as a force for empowerment and liberation. This suggests
analyzing Trump's use of politics as a militarized spectacle not in isolation from the larger
social totality -- as simply one of incompetence, for instance- but as part of a more
comprehensive political project in which updated forms of authoritarianism and contemporary
versions of fascism are being mobilized and gaining traction both in the United States and
across the globe. Federico Mayor, the former director general of UNESCO once stated that 'You
cannot expect anything from uneducated citizens except unstable democracy'. In the current
historical moment and age of Trump, it might be more appropriate to say that what can be
expected from a society in which ignorance is a virtue and civic literacy and education are
viewed as a liability, one cannot expect anything but fascism.
The pandemic crisis should be a rallying cry to create massive collective resistance against
both the Republican and Democratic Parties and the naked brutality of the political and
economic system they have supported since the 1970s. That is, the criminogenic response to the
crisis on the part of the Trump administration should become a call to arms, if not a model on
a global level, for a massive protest movement that moves beyond the ritual of trying Trump and
other authoritarian politicians for an abuse of power. Instead, such a movement should become a
call to put on trial a capitalist system while fighting for structural and ideological reforms
that will usher in a radical and socialist democracy worthy of the struggle.
What is crucial to remember is no democracy cannot survive without an informed citizenry.
Moreover, solidarity among individuals cannot be assumed and must fought for as part of a wider
struggle to break down the walls ideological and material repression that isolate,
depoliticize, and pit individuals and groups against each other. Community and a robust public
sphere cannot be built on the bonds of shared fears, isolation, and oppression. Authoritarian
governments will work to contain both any semblance of democratic politics and any attempts at
large scale transformations of society. Power lies in more than understanding and the ability
to disrupt, it also lies in a vision of a future that does not imitate the present and the
courage to collectively struggle to bring a radical democratic socialist vision into
fruition.
References.
Butsch, R. (2019). Screen Culture: A Global History . London: Polity.
Geyer, M. (1989). 'The Militarization of Europe, 1914-1945', in J. R. Gillis (ed)
Militarization of the Western World . New Brunswick: NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Zambrano. O. (2020). Personal correspondence. March 20.
This article first appeared on E-International Relations .Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Henry Giroux –
Ourania FilippakouHenry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for
Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the
Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include
American
Nightmare: Facing the Challenge of Fascism (City Lights, 2018), On Critical Pedagogy , 2nd
edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); The Terror of the
Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), and Neoliberalism's
War on Higher Education , 2nd edition (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2020).Ourania
Filippakou is Reader and Director of Teaching and Learning in the Department of Education at
Brunel University London. Her most recent book, co-authored with Ted Tapper, is '
Creating the Future? The 1960s New English Universities ' (Dordrecht: Springer, 2019). Her
forthcoming books are: 'Higher education and the Crisis of Europe' (2021) and 'Restructuring
Knowledge in Higher Education' (with Ted Tapper) both to be published by Routledge. She is
co-editor of the British Educational Research Journal
THE SENATE Intelligence Committee has
released a bipartisan
report with a stark bottom line: What President Trump calls the " Russia hoax " isn't a hoax at all.
The fourth and latest installment in lawmakers' review of Moscow's meddling examines a
January 2017 assessment by the nation's spy agencies that Mr. Trump has repeatedly attempted to
discredit -- and confirms it, unanimously. Russia sought to subvert Americans' belief in our
democracy, bring down Hillary Clinton and bolster her rival. That these legislators from both
sides of the aisle are willing to say as much after three years of thorough investigation is an
encouraging sign of some independent thinking still left in government. It's also a reminder of
the peril this independence is in today. The Russia hoax was never a hoax. An encouraging
bipartisan report confirms it. - The Washington Post
The committee members conclude that the intelligence community produced a "coherent and
well-constructed . . . basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference
in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" despite a tight time frame. The report also examines
two matters of particular contention: first, whether the salacious dossier compiled by former
British intelligence officer Christopher Steele played an inappropriate role in the finding of
interference; the senators say it did not. And second, whether former CIA director John O.
Brennan pressured colleagues into arriving at a stronger conclusion than the evidence
warranted.
This latter concern is also at the center of the broad probe Attorney General William P.
Barr has ordered into the origins of the Russia investigation. "There are a lot of things that
are unexplained," Mr. Barr has said
. "And we'll be able to sort out exactly what happened." Yet the senators have pursued the same
avenues of inquiry and come up with a clear answer: The differing levels of confidence among
agencies were "justified and properly represented," and the ultimate wording was reached
"openly and with sufficient exchanges of views."
If the new coronavirus pandemic has taught us one thing, it is that we need to rethink what
we need to do to keep America safe. That's why Secretary of Defense Mark Esper's recent
tweet calling modernization of U.S. nuclear forces a "top priority ... to protect the
American people and our allies" seemed so tone deaf.
COVID-19 has already
killed more Americans than
died in the
9/11 attacks and the Iraq and Afghan wars combined, with projections of many more to come.
The pandemic underscores the need for a systematic, sustainable, long-term investment in public
health resources,
from protective equipment , to ventilators and hospital beds, to research and planning
resources needed to deal with future outbreaks of disease.
As Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American
Enterprise Institute, has
noted : "We're going to see enormous downward pressure on defense spending because of other
urgent American national needs like health care." And that's as it should be, given the
relative dangers posed by outbreaks of disease and climate change relative to traditional
military challenges.
... ... ...
ICBMs are dangerous because of the short decision time a president would have to decide
whether to launch them in a crisis to avoid having them wiped out in a perceived first strike
-- a matter of
minutes . This reality greatly increases the prospect of an accidental nuclear war based on
a false warning of attack. This is a completely unnecessary risk given that the other two legs
of the nuclear triad -- ballistic missile submarines and nuclear-armed bombers -- are more than
sufficient to deter a nuclear attack, or to retaliate, should the unlikely scenario of a
nuclear attack on the United States occur.
... ... ...
Eliminating ICBMs and reducing the size of the U.S. arsenal will face strong opposition in
Washington, both from strategists who maintain that the nuclear triad should be sacrosanct, and
from special interests that benefit from excess spending on nuclear weapons. The Senate
ICBM Coalition , composed of senators from states with ICBM bases or substantial ICBM
development and maintenance work, has been particularly effective in fending any changes in
ICBM policy, from reducing the size of the force to merely studying alternatives, whether those
alternatives are implemented or not.
Shimizu Randall Personally I don't see why the Trident subs cannot be refurbished and have
a extended life. I think the Minuteman missiles need to be replace. But I don't understand why
the cost is exorbitant. Terry Auckland
OMG.....what a sensible idea..Other nuclear capable countries will fall into line if this is
adopted....peace could thrive and flourish ...sadly it could never happen..too much money at
state...too many careers truncated...and too many lobbyists and thinktank type's and loyalist
senators to cajole and appease..
A pipe dream I think. ..situation normal will continue to annhilation...
Dangerous pathogens are captured in the wild and made deadlier in government biowarfare labs. Did that happen here?
There has been no scientific finding that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered, but its origins are not entirely clear. Deadly
pathogens discovered in the wild are sometimes studied in labs – and sometimes made more dangerous. That possibility, and other plausible
scenarios, have been incorrectly dismissed in remarks by some scientists and government officials, and in the coverage of most major
media outlets.
Regardless of the source of this pandemic, there is considerable documentation that a global biological arms race going on outside
of public view could produce even more deadly pandemics in the future.
While much of the media and political establishment have minimized the threat from such lab work, some hawks on the American right
like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark ., have singled out Chinese biodefense researchers as uniquely dangerous.
The current dynamics of the biological arms race have been driven by US government decisions that extend back decades. In December
2009, Reuters
reported that the Obama administration was refusing even to negotiate the possible monitoring of biological weapons.
Much of the left in the US now appears unwilling to scrutinize the origin of the pandemic – or the wider issue of biowarfare –
perhaps because portions of the anti-Chinese right have been so vocal in making unfounded allegations.
Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between "biowarfare" and "biodefense,"
as if to paint such "defense" programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.
"Biodefense" implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight
them. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such "defense"
research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.
The legal scholar who drafted the main US law on the subject, Francis Boyle, warned in his 2005 book "
Biowarfare and Terrorism " that an "illegal biological arms
race with potentially catastrophic consequences" was underway, largely driven by the US government.
For years,
many scientists have raised concerns regarding bioweapons/biodefense lab work, and specifically about the fact that huge increases
in funding have taken place since 9/11. This was especially true after the anthrax-by-mail attacks that killed five people in the
weeks after 9/11, which the FBI ultimately blamed on a US government biodefense scientist. A 2013 study found that biodefense funding
since 2001 had totaled at least $78 billion
, and more has surely been spent since then. This has led to a
proliferation of laboratories , scientists and new organisms,
effectively setting off a biological arms race.
Following the Ebola outbreak in west Africa in 2014, the US government
paused
funding for what are known as "gain-of-function" research on certain organisms. This work actually seeks to make deadly pathogens
deadlier, in some cases making pathogens airborne that previously were not. With little notice outside the field,
the pause on such research was lifted
in late 2017 .
During this pause, exceptions for funding were made for dangerous gain-of-function lab work. This included work jointly done by
US scientists from the University of North Carolina, Harvard and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This work – which had funding from
USAID and EcoHealth Alliance not originally acknowledged – was published in
2015 in Nature Medicine .
A different Nature Medicine article about the origin of the current pandemic, authored by five scientists and
published on March 17, has been touted by major media
outlet and some officials – including current National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins – as definitively disproving
a lab origin for the novel coronavirus. That journal article, titled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2," stated unequivocally: "Our
analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." This is a subtly misleading
sentence. While the scientists state that there is no known laboratory "signature" in the SARS-Cov-2 RNA, their argument fails to
take account of other lab methods that could have created coronavirus mutations without leaving such a signature.
Indeed, there is also the question of conflict of interest in the Nature Medicine article. Some of the authors of that article,
as well as a February 2020
Lancet letter condemning
"conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin" – which seemed calculated to minimize outside scrutiny
of biodefense lab work – have troubling ties to the biodefense complex, as well as to the US government. Notably, neither of these
articles makes clear that a virus can have a natural origin and then be captured and studied in a controlled laboratory setting before
being let loose, either intentionally or accidentally – which is clearly a possibility in the case of the coronavirus.
Facts as "rumors"
This reporter raised questions about the subject at a news conference with a Center for Disease Control (CDC) representative
at the now-shuttered National Press Club on Feb. 11. I asked if it was a "complete coincidence" that the pandemic had started in
Wuhan, the only place in China with a declared biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory. BSL4 laboratories have the most stringent safety
mechanisms, but handle the most deadly pathogens. As I mentioned, it was odd that the ostensible origin of the novel coronavirus
was bat caves in Yunnan province – more than 1,000 miles from Wuhan. I noted that "gain-of-function" lab work can results in more
deadly pathogens, and that major labs, including
some in the US, have had accidental releases .
CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat said that based on the information she had seen, the virus was of "zoonotic origin."
She also stated, regarding gain-of-function lab work, that it is important to "protect researchers and their laboratory workers as
well as the community around them and that we use science for the benefit of people."
I followed up by asking whether an alleged natural origin did not preclude the possibility that this virus came through
a lab, since a lab could have acquired a bat virus and been working on it. Schuchat replied to the assembled journalists that "it
is very common for rumors to emerge that can take on life of their own," but did not directly answer the question. She noted that
in the 2014 Ebola outbreak some observers had pointed to nearby labs as the possible cause, claiming this "was a key rumor that had
to be overcome in order to help control the outbreak." She reiterated: "So based on everything that I know right now, I can tell
you the circumstances of the origin really look like animals-to-human. But your question, I heard."
This is no rumor. It's a fact: Labs work with dangerous pathogens. The US and China each have dual-use biowarfare/biodefense programs.
China has major facilities at Wuhan – a biosafety level 4 lab and a biosafety level 2 lab. There are leaks from labs. (See "
Preventing a Biological Arms Race ,"
MIT Press, 1990, edited by Susan Wright; also, a partial review in
Journal of International Law from October 1992.)
Much of the discussion of this deadly serious subject is marred with snark that avoids or dodges the "gain-of-function" question.
ABC
ran a story on March 27 titled "Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 'Is Not a Laboratory Construct.'" That
story did not address the possibility that the virus could have been found in the wild, studied in a lab and then released.
On March 21, USA Today
published a piece headlined "Fact Check: Did the Coronavirus Originate In a Chinese Laboratory?" – and rated it "FALSE."
That USA Today story relied on the Washington Post, which published a widely cited article on
Feb. 17 headlined,
"Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked." That article quoted public comments from
Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright, but out of context and only in part. Specifically, the story quoted
from Ebright's tweet that the coronavirus was not an "engineered bioweapon." In fact, his full quote included the clarification that
the virus could have " entered human population
through lab accident ." (An email requesting clarification sent to Post reporter Paulina Firozi was met with silence.)
Bioengineered ≠ From a lab
Other pieces in the Post since then (
some heavily sourced to
US government officials ) have conveyed Ebright's thinking, but it gets worse. In a private exchange, Ebright – who, again, has
said clearly that the novel coronavirus was not technically bioengineered using known coronavirus sequences – stated that other forms
of lab manipulation could have been responsible for the current pandemic. This runs counter to much reporting, which is perhaps too
scientifically illiterate to perceive the difference.
The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has no signatures of human manipulation.
This rules out the kinds of gain-of-function (GoF) research that leave signatures of human manipulation in genome sequences
(e.g., use of recombinant DNA methods to construct chimeric viruses), but does not rule out kinds of GoF research that do not leave
signatures (e.g., serial passage in animals). [emphasis added]
Very easy to imagine the equivalent of the Fouchier's "10 passages in ferrets" with H5N1 influenza virus, but, in this case,
with 10 passages in non-human primates with bat coronavirus RaTG13 or bat coronavirus KP876546.
That last paragraph is very important. It refers to virologist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who performed
research on intentionally increasing rates of viral mutation rate by spreading a virus from one animal to another in a sequence.
The New York Times wrote about this in an
editorial in January 2012,
warning of "An Engineered Doomsday."
"Now scientists financed by the National Institutes of Health" have created a "virus that could kill tens or hundreds of millions
of people" if it escaped confinement, the Times wrote. The story continued:
Working with ferrets, the animal that is most like humans in responding to influenza, the researchers found that a mere five
genetic mutations allowed the virus to spread through the air from one ferret to another while maintaining its lethality. A separate
study at the University of Wisconsin, about which little is known publicly, produced a virus that is thought to be less virulent.
The word "engineering" in the New York Times headline is technically incorrect, since passing a virus through animals is
not "genetic engineering." This same distinction has hindered some from understanding the possible origins of the current pandemic.
Fouchier's flu work, in which an H5N1 virus was made more virulent by transmitting it repeatedly between individual ferrets, briefly
sent shockwaves through the media. "Locked up in the bowels of the medical faculty building here and accessible to only a handful
of scientists lies a man-made flu virus that could change world history if it were ever set free," wrote Science magazine
in 2011 in a
story
titled "Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies." It continues:
The virus is an H5N1 avian influenza strain that has been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets,
the animals that most closely mimic the human response to flu. Scientists believe it's likely that the pathogen, if it emerged in
nature or were released, would trigger an influenza pandemic, quite possibly with many millions of deaths.
In a 17th floor office in the same building, virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center calmly explains why his team
created what he says is "probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make" – and why he wants to publish a paper describing
how they did it. Fouchier is also bracing for a media storm. After he talked to ScienceInsider yesterday, he had an appointment
with an institutional press officer to chart a communication strategy.
Fouchier's paper is one of two studies that have triggered an intense debate about the limits of scientific freedom and that
could portend changes in the way U.S. researchers handle so-called dual-use research: studies that have a potential public health
benefit but could also be useful for nefarious purposes like biowarfare or bioterrorism.
Despite objections, Fouchier's article was published by Science
in June 2012 . Titled "Airborne Transmission
of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets," it summarized how Fouchier's research team made the pathogen more virulent:
Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the
ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet ("airborne transmission") between humans. To address the concern that
the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions, we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis
and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately
becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets.
In other words, Fouchier's research took a flu virus that did not exhibit airborne transmission, then infected a number
of ferrets until it mutated to the point that it was transmissible by air.
In that same year, 2012, a similar study by Yoshihiro
Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin was published in Nature :
Highly pathogenic avian H5N1 influenza A viruses occasionally infect humans, but currently do not transmit efficiently among
humans. Here we assess the molecular changes that would allow a virus to be transmissible among mammals. We identified a virus with
four mutations and the remaining seven gene segments from a 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus – that was capable of droplet transmission in
a ferret model.
Recent experiments that create novel, highly virulent and transmissible pathogens against which there is no human immunity
are unethical they impose a risk of accidental and deliberate release that, if it led to extensive spread of the new agent, could
cost many lives. While such a release is unlikely in a specific laboratory conducting research under strict biosafety procedures,
even a low likelihood should be taken seriously, given the scale of destruction if such an unlikely event were to occur. Furthermore,
the likelihood of risk is multiplied as the number of laboratories conducting such research increases around the globe.
Given this risk, ethical principles, such as those embodied in the
Nuremberg Code , dictate that such experiments would be
permissible only if they provide humanitarian benefits commensurate with the risk, and if these benefits cannot be achieved by less
risky means.
We argue that the two main benefits claimed for these experiments – improved vaccine design and improved interpretation of
surveillance – are unlikely to be achieved by the creation of potential pandemic pathogens (PPP), often termed "gain-of-function"
(GOF) experiments.
There may be a widespread notion that there is scientific consensus that the pandemic did not come out of a lab. But in fact many
of the most knowledgeable scientists in the field are notably silent. This includes Lipsitch at Harvard, Jonathan A. King at MIT
and many others.
Just last year, Lynn Klotz of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation wrote a
paper
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled "Human Error in High-biocontainment Labs: A Likely Pandemic Threat." Wrote
Klotz:
Incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security laboratories often known by their
acronyms, BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) and BSL4. Lab incidents that lead to undetected or unreported laboratory-acquired infections can
lead to the release of a disease into the community outside the lab; lab workers with such infections will leave work carrying the
pathogen with them. If the agent involved were a potential pandemic pathogen, such a community release could lead to a worldwide
pandemic with many fatalities. Of greatest concern is a release of a lab-created, mammalian-airborne-
transmissible, highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, such as the airborne-transmissible H5N1 viruses created in the laboratories
of Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Madison, Wisconsin.
"Crazy, dangerous"
Boyle, a professor of international
law at the University of Illinois , has condemned Fouchier, Kawaoka and others – including at least one of the authors of the
recent Nature Medicine article in the strongest terms, calling such work a "criminal enterprise." While Boyle has been embroiled
in numerous controversies, he's been especially dismissed by many on this issue. The "fact-checking" website
Snopes has described him as "a lawyer with
no formal training in virology" – without noting that he wrote the relevant U.S. law.
The law Boyle drafted states: "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction
over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States."
Boyle also warned:
Russia and China have undoubtedly reached the same conclusions I have derived from the same open and public sources, and have
responded in kind. So what the world now witnesses is an all-out offensive biological warfare arms race among the major military
powers of the world: United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, inter alia.
We have reconstructed the Offensive Biological Warfare Industry that we had deployed in this county before its prohibition
by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, described by Seymour Hersh in his groundbreaking expose "
Chemical
and Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal ." (1968)
Boyle now states that he has been "blackballed" in the media on this issue, despite his having written the relevant statute. The
group he worked with on the law, the Council for Responsible Genetics, went under several years ago, making Boyle's views against
"biodefense" even more marginal as government money for dual use work poured into the field and critics within the scientific community
have fallen silent. In turn, his denunciations have grown more sweeping.
In the 1990 book " Preventing a Biological
Arms Race ," scholar Susan Wright argued that current laws regarding bioweapons were insufficient, as there were "projects in
which offensive and defensive aspects can be distinguished only by claimed motive." Boyle notes, correctly, that current law he drafted
does not make an exception for "defensive" work, but only for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes."
While Boyle is particularly vociferous in his condemnations, he is not alone. There has been irregular, but occasional media attention
to this threat. The Guardian ran a piece in 2014, "
Scientists
condemn 'crazy, dangerous' creation of deadly airborne flu virus ," after Kawaoka created a life-threatening virus that "closely
resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people":
"The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous," said Lord May, the former president
of the Royal Society and one time chief science adviser to the UK government. "Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising from
the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people."
Boyle's
charges
beginning early this year that the coronavirus was bioengineered – allegations recently mirrored by French virologist and
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier – have not been corroborated by any publicly produced findings of any US scientist. Boyle even
charges that scientists like Ebright, who is at Rutgers, are compromised because the university got a
biosafety level
3 lab in 2017 – though Ebright is perhaps the most vocal eminent critic of this research, among US scientists. These and other
controversies aside, Boyle's concerns about the dangers of biowarfare are legitimate; indeed, Ebright shares them.
Some of the most vocal voices to discuss the origins of the novel coronavirus have been eager to minimize the dangers of lab work,
or have focused almost exclusively on "wet markets" or "exotic" animals as the likely cause.
The media celebrated Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
when she declared on Twitter on March 3 (in a since-deleted tweet) that the origin of the pandemic was discovered: "It's pangolins.
#COVID19 Researchers studied lung tissue from 12 of the scaled mammals that were illegally trafficked in Asia and found #SARSCoV2
in 3. The animals were found in Guangxi, China. Another virus+ smuggled sample found in Guangzhou."
She was swiftly corrected by Ebright:
"Arrant nonsense. Did you even read the paper? Reported pangolin coronavirus is not SARS-CoV-2 and is not even particularly close
to SARS-CoV-2. Bat coronavirus RaTG13 is much closer to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% identical) than reported pangolin coronavirus (92.4% identical)."
He added: "No reason to invoke pangolin as intermediate. When A is much closer than B to C, in the absence of additional data, there
is no rational basis to favor pathway A>B>C over pathway A>C." When someone asked what Garrett was saying, Ebright
responded : "She is saying she is scientifically
illiterate."
The following day, Garrett corrected herself (
without acknowledging Ebright ): "I blew
it on the #Pangolins paper, & then took a few hours break from Twitter. It did NOT prove the species = source of #SARSCoV2. There's
a torrent of critique now, deservedly denouncing me & my posting. A lot of the critique is super-informative so leaving it all up
4 while."
At least one Chinese government official has
responded to the allegation that the labs in Wuhan could be the source for the pandemic by alleging that perhaps the US is responsible
instead. In American mainstream media, that has been reflexively treated as even
more ridiculous
than the original allegation that the virus could have come from a lab.
Obviously the Chinese government's allegations should not be taken at face value, but neither should US government claims – especially
considering that US government labs were the apparent source for the
anthrax attacks in 2001 . Those attacks sent panic through
the US and shut down Congress, allowing the Bush administration to enact the
PATRIOT Act and ramp up the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, in October 2001, media darlings like
Richard Butler and
Andrew Sullivan propagandized for war
with Iraq because of the anthrax attacks. (Neither Iraq nor al-Qaida was involved.)
The 2001 anthrax attacks also provided much of the pretext for the surge in biolab spending since then, even though they apparently
originated in a US or U.S.-allied lab. Indeed, those attacks remain
shrouded in
mystery .
The US government has also come up with elaborate cover stories to distract from its bioweapons work. For instance, the US government
infamously claimed the 1953 death of Frank Olson, a scientist at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was an
LSD experiment gone wrong; it now appears to have been an execution to cover up for US biological warfare.
Regardless of the cause of the current pandemic, these biowarfare/biodefense labs need far more scrutiny. The call to shut them
down by Boyle and others needs to be clearly heard – and light must be shone on precisely what research is being conducted.
The secrecy of these labs may prevent us ever knowing with certainty the origins of the current pandemic. What we do know is this
kind of lab work comes with real dangers. One might make a comparison to climate change: We cannot attribute an individual hurricane
to man-made climate disruption, yet science tells us that human activity makes stronger hurricanes more likely. That brings us back
to the imperative to cease the kinds of activities that produce such dangers in the first place.
If that doesn't happen, the people of the planet will be at the mercy of the machinations and mistakes of state actors who are
playing with fire for their geopolitical interests.
"... The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world. ..."
"... Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order ..."
More than 10 years ago, the columnist Charles Krauthammer
asserted that American
"decline is a choice," and argued tendentiously that Barack Obama had chosen it. Yet looking back over the last decade, it has become
increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want.
The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after
the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves
into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently
husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world.
There was a brief period during the 1990s and early 2000s when the U.S. could claim to be the world's hegemonic power. America
had no near-peer rivals; it was at the height of its influence across most of the globe. That status, however, was always a transitory
one, and was lost quickly thanks to self-inflicted wounds in Iraq and the natural growth of other powers that began to compete for
influence. While America remains the most powerful state in the world, it no longer dominates as it did 20 years ago. And there can
be no recapturing what was lost.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon explore these matters in their new book,
Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order . They make a strong case for distinguishing between the
old hegemonic order and the larger international order of which it is a part. As they put it, "global international order is not
synonymous with American hegemony." They also make careful distinctions between the different components of what is often simply
called the "liberal international order": political liberalism, economic liberalism, and liberal intergovernmentalism. The first
involves the protection of rights, the second open economic exchange, and the third the form of international order that recognizes
legally equal sovereign states. Cooley and Nexon note that both critics and defenders of the "liberal international order" tend to
assume that all three come as a "package deal," but point out that these parts do not necessarily reinforce each other and do not
have to coexist.
While the authors are quite critical of Trump's foreign policy, they don't pin the decline of the old order solely on him. They
argue that hegemonic unraveling takes place when the hegemon loses its monopoly over patronage and "more states can compete when
it comes to providing economic, security, diplomatic, and other goods." The U.S. has been losing ground for the better part of the
last 20 years, much of it unavoidable as other states grew wealthier and sought to wield greater influence. The authors make a persuasive
case that the "exit" from hegemony is already taking place and has been for some time.
Many defenders of U.S. hegemony insist that the "liberal international order" depends on it. That has never made much sense. For
one, the continued maintenance of American hegemony frequently conflicts with the rules of international order. The hegemon reserves
the right to interfere anywhere it wants, and tramples on the sovereignty and legal rights of other states as it sees fit. In practice,
the U.S. has frequently acted as more of a rogue in its efforts to "enforce" order than many of the states it likes to condemn. The
most vocal defenders of U.S. hegemony are unsurprisingly some of the biggest opponents of international law -- at least when it gets
in their way. Cooley and Nexon make a very important observation related to this in their discussion of the role of revisionist powers
in the world today:
But the key point is that we need to be extremely careful that we don't conflate "revisionism" with opposition to the United
States. The desire to undermine hegemony and replace it with a multipolar system entails revisionism with respect to the distribution
of power, but it may or may not be revisionist with respect to various elements of international architecture or infrastructure.
The core of the book is a survey of three different sources for the unraveling of U.S. hegemony: major powers, weaker states,
and transnational "counter-order" movements. Cooley and Nexon trace how Russia and China have become increasingly effective at wielding
influence over many smaller states through patronage and the creation of parallel institutions and projects such as the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). They discuss
a number of weaker states that have begun hedging their bets by seeking patronage from these major powers as well as the U.S. Where
once America had a "near monopoly" on such patronage, this has ceased to be the case. They also track the role of "counter-order"
movements, especially nationalist and populist groups, in bringing pressure to bear on their national governments and cooperating
across borders to challenge international institutions. Finally, they spell out how the U.S. itself has contributed to the erosion
of its own position through reckless policies dating back at least to the invasion of Iraq.
The conventional response to the unraveling of America's hegemony here at home has been either a retreat into nostalgia with simplistic
paeans to the wonders of the "liberal international order" that ignore the failures of that earlier era or an intensified commitment
to hard-power dominance in the form of ever-increasing military budgets (or some combination of the two). Cooley and Nexon contend
that the Trump administration has opted for the second of these responses. Citing the president's emphasis on maintaining military
dominance and his support for exorbitant military spending, they say "it suggests an approach to hegemony more dependent upon military
instruments, and thus on the ability (and willingness) of the United States to continue extremely high defense spending. It depends
on the wager that the United States both can and should substitute raw military power for its hegemonic infrastructure." That not
only points to what Barry Posen has
called "illiberal hegemony,"
but also leads to a foreign policy that is even more militarized and unchecked by international law.
Cooley and Nexon make a compelling observation about how Trump's demand for more allied military spending differs from normal
calls for burden-sharing. Normally, burden-sharing advocates call on allies to spend more so the U.S. can spend less. But that isn't
Trump's position at all. His administration pressures allied governments to increase their spending, while showing no desire to curtail
the Pentagon budget:
Retrenchment entails some combination of shedding international security commitments and shifting defense burdens onto allies
and partners. This allows the retrenching power, in principle, to redirect military spending toward domestic priorities, particularly
those critical to long-term productivity and economic growth. In the current American context, this means making long-overdue
investments in transportation infrastructure, increasing educational spending to develop human capital, and ramping up support
for research and development. This rationale makes substantially less sense if retrenchment policies do not produce reductions
in defense spending–which is why Trump's aggressive, public, and coercive push for burden sharing seems odd. Recall that Trump
and his supporters want, and have already implemented, increases in the military budget. There is no indication that the Trump
administration would change defense spending if, for example, Germany or South Korea increased their own military spending or
more heavily subsidized American bases.
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how misguided our priorities as a nation have been. There is now a chance to change course,
but that will require our leaders to shift their thinking. U.S. hegemony is already on its way out; now Americans need to decide
what our role in the world will look like afterwards. Warmed-over platitudes about "leadership" won't suffice and throwing more money
at the Pentagon is a dead end. The way forward is a strategy of retrenchment, restraint, and renewal.
Yeah. US just happened to decline, a completely natural process, some universal constant, like gravity of which we have no control.
No. A decadent US population, informed by clueless media, put in charge incompetent and self-serving leaders, who made a series
of very poor choices for the nation, but financially beneficial for themselves.
And thus our betrayed America's version of the White Man's Burden. It's sad to think our children having to endure living in a
world where they aren't called to die in God-forsaken hellholes for reasons that have nothing to do with this nation's core principles.
Sad!
Lol. Sort of. Except the very oligarchs you speak of, on both sides, set the stage for all of it.
This is the inevitable result of voting as a right, ans they knew it. Universal suffrage is a tool of control, not liberty.
The oligarchs are really just like other Americans, who got their hands on a whole lot of money. I have no doubt the rest of the
population would behave like oligarchs if given the same resources.
We don't have universal suffrage and voting is no where named as a right in the Constitution. The most it has to say is that voting
can not be denied to people based on their membership in certain classes, nor limited based on the payment of a tax.
"it has become increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want."
It isn't "irrespective of". It is because of what they wanted. They wanted and aggressively pushed for US foreign policy
to serve the narrow regional interests of client states like Israel and Saudi Arabia. They got what they wanted, in spades, and
now America's geopolitical and economic fortunes are in a tail-spin.
If America had ignored these people, with their stupid interventionism, their almost blatant service of foreign interests by
demanding "no daylight" with "allies" who did nothing but suck our blood, we would have been far better off. We would have been
far better able to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to the pandemic. It's impossible not to think ruefully of the trillions
we wasted on Middle East wars and other interventions, money now so badly needed here at home.
The US will pursue a similar path to Israel. Advantage is relative. Rather than repair the US economy it is simpler to destroy
those of one's rivals. I see war as the only attractive option for the US elite as that is the only area where they still enjoy
clear superiority (or believe they do, same thing policy-wise.)
Cooley and Nevon's book appears to be a good read - I will put it on my 'to read so buy' book list. China is the next hegemon
- this is inevitable due to design. As time goes by during this 'coronavirus pandemic' I have been waiting to hear a politician,
any politician, assert that they will support legislation to require 'essential supply lines' to be returned to the U.S. Aside
from 'murmurs', not a 'lucid' peep. Just 'sue china' legislation, or smoke and mirrors blame on those within the U.S. via the
media or politicians. This is just embarrassing and surreal.
The priority should be to bring these supply lines back to the U.S. [i.e., medical]. Too hell if I am going to be forced to
pay for 'Obamacare' or 'Medicare For All' like a Russian Serf, to the Corporations [vassals] of China [Tatars] - enforced by their
'Eunuchs', greedy politicians in Washington. {Eunuchs were castrated lackies of Emperors]. Yet Chinese slave labour on these medical
products, including pharmaceutical ingredients, and precious metals for parts for the Department of Defense, keep profit margins
very high.
Because of their cowardice one must ask: Why increase defense spending on any project - or be concerned with Iran or Venezuela
or Russia or keeping NATO afloat? Allowing China to continue to be the 'sole source' provider of essential goods is just asking
for another scenario like the one before us. If so, I am convinced that my country is nothing more than a 'dead carcass' being
ripped apart by 'Corporate Vassals of China'. This, of course, includes the Tech Companies as well.
China does not have ideal geography to be world hegemon.
For one thing, it is too easy to prevent any ships from leaving the South China Sea.
The fact that China has not gone to war with anyone since 1953, except for two sharp but short border conflicts in 1962 and
1979, should tell you something. Contrast with the peace-loving liberal democracy of the United States.
The answer of course is a functional international system--environmental protection, world health, a transparent financial system,
world court, and policing. All agreed on by at least the major players which makes it costly for others not to participate.
With good reason many 'mistrust' this int'l system given the threat to sovereignty of a country, most importantly the freedom
of its citizens. An int'l system is asymmetrical, a radical 're-distribution' program that preys on citizens of the 'pseudo-wealthy'
west. The United States will be, post-Corona Virus, potentially $30T in debt. Yet they contribute the most to the WHO. The largest
contribution to the UN comes from the United States. This fact seems to rebut your 'costly for others not to participate'.
The Paris Agreement, like the UN and WHO, will rely on most of the funds coming from the U.S. and redistributed to other countries.
And this will further destroy the standard of living in this country to the degree of crashing the economy. The expected Utopian
Outcome for this so-called 'One-World' order will be a great disappointment to those that advocate for it. Because, after all,
it is nothing more than a Utopian dream gambling on the cohesive nature of different demographic groups combined with significant
reduction in freedoms for all - based on flawed models, including so-called 'man made global warming' models. To define the Demographic
is use in the context of my response: does not = race; it equals culture. Right now this is being demonstrated in the super state
of the EU. There can be no harmony in a world like this. It is like forcing a 'square peg' into a 'round hole'.
And who are these major players? The Eunuch Politicians in Washington and Western Europe? What are their priorities? Their
wallets or their constituents? And I do not mean in a parental way. That is not the role of government.
Viewed from a global perspective at this time, there is a decline in American power and influence, but the vanity of politicians
prevents them from seeing it and they don't want to let go.
The British government makes the same mistakes as it clings to an imaginary "prestige" as a world power - a power that vanished
in 1914.
After Eden was removed as PM post-Suez the new PM Harold McMillan came in and was honest with the British ppl in explaining their
new role in the world, just 10-15 years after the triumph of WW2 a UK Prime Minister had the courage to tell the British people
that they were no longer at the top table, that the age of Empire was over and to put in place the policies required to remove
the burden of empire from Britain and adjust to its new role in the world. Do you see an American politician with the capability
to tell some uncomfortable home truths to the American people and still win an election?
i think that is why voters elected Trump. The citizens of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin have lived the decline of the
United States. At least under trump there have been no new wars but the withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan NATO, Japan, Korea needs
to occur with the Military-Industrial-Media Complex kicking and screaming.with each step. Also ending sanctions on Iran, Cuba,
North Korea and Venezuela.
We are in Japan because it allows us to patrol the sea lanes which is vital for our economy and it gives us a large force ready
to respond in case of Chinese or North Korean aggression. The Status of Forces Agreement and other treaties with Japan stipulate
what percentage of costs are born by Japan.
Allowing Japan to destroy consumer electronics, damage steel and automotive is vital to our economy? Could we not patrol the sea
lanes if we wanted to from Guam? Is not freedom of the sea just as vital to Japan, Europe and India? How is China or North Korea
the aggressor when Japan, Korea and Taiwan have been client states of China with the US thousands of miles away?
Imperialism has bankrupt the United States just as it did Europe. The time has come to end these treaties.
Ultra protectionism, retreat to our island and no one can find us, 'make America great again' I dare say, thinking is naive and
unrealistic.
America wil be poorer, weaker, and more vulnerable if it tried to only make its own goods and had to rely on only its own labor.
Trade is profit and profit is the ability to develop, build, and defend what we have. Where do the profits go is the question.
Who loses in the trade is another question. Does the benefit from the former outweigh the latter?
I don't see Japanese trade as making much of a dent in employment rates. The profits go to the Japanese state and industry,
who are important counterweights to Chinese ambitions in Asia, a mutual interest. So, the costs are few, and the profits are used
in significant measure to mutual benefit.
The liberal hegemon is dead, yes our imperialism is dead even if it doesn't know it, but it is essential to remain strategically
involved in the world around us. Even if we stop playing the game, the world around us does not. Did Russia have the luxury of
turning into a turtle after the Cold War? No. Nations, which are all wolves, smell weakness. Yet the Trumpian right wants to hide,
put its finger in its ear, and pretend that everything will be fine it seems.
What are these withdrawals from Iraq & Afghanistan you speak of? They just have not happened, like not even a little bit, so tired
of people pushing this completely false narrative as if it is true, just maddening. A democracy cannot function if people exist
in their own worlds with their own facts that are just not true
The Brits after WW2 offer a lesson here. Hurt badly by WW1, their whole system began teetering as that illusion of the "natural
superiority" of the British took massive hits in the various colonies of the Empire. By exposing the ordinariness of the administrators
and soldiers, it encouraged revolt (see Gandhi in India). But WW2 arguably devastated the UK. It's "win" over Germany was Pyrrhic,
as it needed both the USSR and the USA , and each took a chunk of prestige and of the "hegemon". George VI recognized this, and
British politicians encouraged the shift from Empire to Commonwealth. (Which, if they had never involved themselves in the EU
beyond trade and had kept up the Commonwealth as it was intended, would have been a better path than what they did, IMHO.) Nevertheless,
they handled it better than I think we will.
As Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
But to get there, we have a lot of nonsense -- damned nonsense - - to overcome.
Excellent review and outlook on an encouraging transition from the compulsion of hegemony within a generally agreeable paradigm
of economic liberalism (rules-based international markets).
Well this present regime is actively smashing "international organizations" constructed largely by the Americans after WW2. This
makes it even easier for the Chinese to fill the vacuum we have created. It would be better to hold them in a Western biased "international
organization"
All indications are that ship has sailed. Will there be hegemons? Yes, but more than one. The US will not be the only hegemon
and the COVID-19 helped the world see the emperor has no clothes.
I think that's the likely course, unless the US remains especially incompetent in ensuring that China isn't the one cleaning up
at all the empire liquidation sales.
No nation should be entrusted with anything like the power the US has had.
Until they start shooting down our airliners, sinking our cruise ships, attacking our Naval Bases, and invading their neighbors
and committing genocide against people of other races and religions.
Then, the doves will wake up and realize that the Big Stick is what kept us safe afterall.
You mean fight people who actually threaten us rather than attack people because we dream up scenarios where it's possible or
we just don't like them? I'll take that over preemptive genocide.
If we focused on actual defense 9/11 would not have happened. We ignored Al Qaeda despite the fact the bombed us multiple times
because we were too busy bombing Serbia, blowing up their TV stations and expanding NATO to gobble up former Russian Republics.
The United States routinely ignores any international laws, whenever it sees fit. Anyway, the idea that United States hegemony
is obligatory because muh international order is an argument from consequences.
Lol, America Is what's in the rear view, not just our status as the sole superpower.
People better get ready, this empire is getting ready to collapse.
Meh, people better get ready, we're getting ready to muddle along for the next several decades.
The American state is way too tasty a prize. No one is going to dismantle it, and people will unite against any threat that
has the potential to. Eventually someone will figure out a Bernie/Trump fusion and that person will be our Peron or Putin. Radical
leftists will be crushed by the police if they try anything, and the white nationalists will all be in prison.
We're somewhere between Argentina and Russia heading forward.
Sell the empire. Ignore the Middle East outside of the oil trade lanes. Reorient our trade networks on SE Asia, India, and Latin
America - no more feeding China. End of hostile moves towards Russia - let Europe reconcile with Russia. Fully support multipolar
world order.
Militarily we don't need the plodding battleship of a force we have now. No need to occupy whole countries with 'boots on the
ground'. Maintain top notch special forces, advisor and coordination programs with allies, and anything useful for blowing up
Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles.
Lots of good ideas here. Would trading with India involve a "reorient[ation]?" (I don't know.) That is to say, would still trading
with India mean that we have to maintain our current naval position, or would that still be consistent with some sort of drawdown?
Or are you saying that since India is not a hostile force, we would not have to worry about it? Or does is that problem met with
the "anything useful for blowing up Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles." Conceivably, China could
increase its presence in the Indian Ocean to create problems, no? Overall, agree with a lot of it--I'm just curious about the
logistics.
India in the longer term could ostensibly do much of what China does for us now trade wise. Needs to finish developing its infrastructure
and its manufacturing tech. SE Asia and Mexico are closer short term.
I think due to the commercial value of the seas our navy is our most cost effective means of force projection. Patrolling the
Persian Gulf means we have our thumb on the number one petroleum artery. I would focus more on cost effective means to deny China
(and Chinese trade) access to the seas in the event of tension. Carriers are expensive targets when subs and strategic missile
emplacements can inspire even more fear due to unpredictability. But yes we still need bases and partnerships throughout the Indian
and Pacific Oceans. China can roam around in peacetime as it wishes, what matters is that it stays totally bottled up in port,
along with its maritime trade, in a conflict.
Allow these places to run up trade surpluses with us rather than China.
I think Mr. Larison is on the right track. However, even if the logic of abandoning the Liberal International Order (LIO) is accepted--and
the LIO most certainly should be abandoned--the entire story or narrative of post-World War II America narrative must be either
abandoned or refashioned. It seems that the LIO functions as some sort of purpose for American citizens, and a higher-level theology
for those who work in the United States Government, especially those who are involved in foreign policy making. Countering or
reshaping the narrative of United States foreign policy and its link with domestic policy will be a challenge, but one that needs
to be taken up, and taken up successfully. In personal conversations with those who support the LIO, they seem to take [my] criticisms
of the LIO as some sort of ad hominem attack. This reaction is obviously illogical, but it is one that those who see the
wisdom of abandoning the LIO must tactically and tactfully counter. Regrettably, supporting the LIO is conflated with being an
American, or conflated with the raison d'etre of the existence of the United States. Many think the abandonment of the
LIO cannot rationally be replaced and will necessarily be replaced with some sort of nihilism or the most cynical form of "realism,"
of which they mistakenly believe they possess understanding. For a start, reforming the educational system, insofar as it not
already dominated by incorrect-but-fashionable far-leftist ideas that advocate a narrative of American history and purpose as
false as it is pernicious, would seem to necessary. Many children grow into adulthood falsely thinking maintaining the LIO is
their responsibility. It is, at root, a theological sickness.
I hope it is over. To hell with the Europeans who have made a national sport of mocking Americans and all things America, while
we risk nuclear war on their behalf. Let them face Putin and the Islamic invasion on their own - those problems are Europe's,
not ours.
The United States is ramping up for the "Great Final War' with both Russia and China. Throw in Iran, Syria, North Korea etc. as
an afterthought. The U.S. will bring the temple down on itself rather than give up the goal of 'Full Spectrum Dominance'.that
it has been pursuing since the end of WWII.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon may think the glory days are coming to an end, but I don't think Trump and the neocons got the
memo yet. I see no evidence of any intent to change.
There is no "international order." That's just rhetoric that is useful for certain economic interests. A world without american
hegemony will be divided and filled with conflict. Globalization can't work politically.
Listen to America's imperial proconsuls long enough and they often let slip something
approaching truth -- perhaps exceptionalist confession is more accurate. Take Admiral Craig S.
Faller, commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), with responsibility for all of Latin
America. Just before the COVID-19 crisis shifted into full gear, on March 11 he testified
before the House Armed Services Committee and admitted
, "There will be an increase in the U.S. military presence in the hemisphere later this year."
Naturally, admiral, but why?
Well, if one can push past the standard, mindless military dialectics -- i.e. "bad guys" --
the admiral posits a ready justification: Russia and (most especially) China. With his early
career molded in the last, triumphalist Reagan-era Cold War, Faller may be a true believer
in new dichotomies that must feel like coming home for the 1983 Naval Academy graduate. Before
the committee, he described
China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela as "malign state actors" who constitute "a vicious
circle of threats." Faller is right about the circle, but it is his own country that produces
it.
These are strange bedfellows, no matter how hard a criminally ahistorical White House and
Pentagon try to sell such disparate nations as naturally allied antagonists. A few of these
countries have tortured recent pasts, and three of them are several thousand miles from the
very hemisphere they ostensibly contest. The truth is that it's U.S. imperialism,
intransigence, and hyper-intervention -- anywhere and everywhere -- that links these
historically and geopolitically unnatural partners together. This holds true both in policy and
imagination. In the Corona Age, the Trump team -- anti-interventionist populist
campaign rhetoric aside -- have outed themselves as
pandemic-opportunists and gleeful slaves to the " New Cold War
."
Today, Washington sets policies that consistently make mountains out of "malign" molehills,
and quite literally construct the Orwellian enemies it
needs. It's hardly anything new. From
Reagan's "confederation of terrorist states" in a new "international Murder Inc." and Bush
II's "axis of evil," to Trump's (or actually
John Bolton's ) recent "troika of tyranny," the utility of the nuance-absent idiom is
clear: manufacture public fear, demonize opponents, and link the otherwise unlinked. Only
there's a catch: Decry a concocted connection often enough and one drives inorganic rivals into
each other's arms.
Exhibit A is East Asia. China and Russia are hardly historically simpatico. During the Cold
War, the Sino-Soviet split put the lie to communism as mythical monolith and resulted in a
shooting war
along the immense border between them. Furthermore, Beijing -- the rising regional power --
won't forever acquiesce to the archaic imperial boundaries, especially as a demographic
tipping point nears whereby Russia's scant Siberian population is overrun by Chinese
migrants. And Putin knows it.
Luckily for Vlad, U.S. demonization of China and Uncle Sam's insistence on perpetual
preeminence in the Western Pacific places that impending conflict on ice as Xi Jinping seeks
out Moscow as an ally of convenience. Remove the American challenge, as the East-West Center's
Denny Roy recently wrote
, and "the primary strategic motivation for Sino-Russian cooperation would fade," and relations
return to "their historically more normal adversarial character."
Back in Latin America, Washington inverts the spatial relationship, but adheres to the
formula of countering -- and creating -- " imagined
communities " of distant enemy "alliances." Though neither Russia or China (and certainly
not Iran) have any meaningful military
presence, Admiral Faller sees these nefarious ghosts behind every palm tree in his area of
responsibility. Their essential crime: trading with and recognizing regimes Washington doesn't
particularly care for in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. The SOUTHCOM chief spoke of how "Russia
once again projected power in our neighborhood ," and that his "aha moment" this past
year was "the extent to which China is aggressively pursuing their interests right here in
our neighborhood ." (emphases added)
That's some fascinating language. As was Faller's reference to Chinese regional loans as
"predatory financing." Pot meet kettle! Surely, even the "
company man " admiral must know that his own navy right now
-- as always -- cruises warships through the disputed South China Sea, and that
Washington has long set the gold
standard in predatory loans through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
Besides, even assume that, say, Russia is wrong to back what Faller had the temerity to
label
the "former Maduro regime," in Venezuela, what of Washington's support for Bolivia's military
coup-installed extremists
in Bolivia, and of the right-wing strongman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil?
Faller's "neighborhood" fallacy illustrates an American hypocrisy without recognizable
bounds. How instructive -- and disturbing -- it is to hear a purportedly educated four-star
flag officer peddle foolish binaries and prattle on in such coarse platitudes. The ease with
which this nonsense passes public and congressional muster is surely symptomatic of an obtuse
U.S. militarist disease. For if the admiral counts as one of those (establishment darling) "
adults
" in the Trumpian room, then the republic is in even bigger trouble than many thought. Either
way, it's high time to recognize Faller and his ilk for what they usually are: staggeringly
"small" thinkers without an inkling of strategic imagination.
It is, however, regarding Iran that the U.S. makes the bed for the most absurd of fellows.
Trump's withdrawal from a functioning nuclear deal, and recent
off-the-rails escalations , accomplish little more than
driving Tehran into Russia's arms. Incidentally, these are decidedly
unnatural friends, seeing as they fought repeated wars over the last few centuries, Moscow
occupied northern Iran after World War II, and their respective contours of regional influence
have long been contested.
Furthermore, it was U.S. complicity in
the Saudi terror war on Yemen that deepened ties between the Houthis and a Tehran that had
hardly given them much thought previously. Not only were Iranian military and religious (the
two peoples actually follow
different strands of Shia Islam) ties initially
exaggerated , but the sequence of increased support is usually confused. Serious support
from Tehran postdated the Saudi assaults.
Lastly, Trump's seemingly self-sabotaging actions decisively empower
the very hardliners in Tehran whom they purport to loathe. Rather than encourage nascent
moderates like President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, The Donald's
unnecessary pugnacity
led to conservative legislative victories in Tehran, and so increased the popularity of the
Supreme Leader that Iranian people are apt to believe the ayatollah's insane
COVID-conspiracy theories.
If the rank absurdity of today's U.S. military posturing, and its outcomes, tend to confuse,
it is important to remember that Trump's audience is us -- the public and the media that
serves it -- not Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or even Ayatollah Khomeini. After all, not even
Trump (I think?) believes the "harassing" Iranian speedboats in the Persian Gulf, that he just
ordered the navy to "to shoot down and destroy" if they misbehave, are headed for
Baltimore. Should Washington's policies appear incoherent, and consequently near masochistic,
well, that might be precisely the point, or, conversely (if unsatisfyingly), all there actually
is to say about that.
If the ultimate goal, as I'm increasingly persuaded, is simply to manufacture the enemy
coalitions necessary to frighten (thus discipline) the people and ensure endless profits for
the military-industrial complex that funds the resultant buildup -- well, then, Mr. Trump's
policies are far more lucid and effective than they're usually credited to be.
On the other hand, if chaos and contingency reign -- as they often have -- in Washington,
then U.S. foreign policy represents nothing less than counter-productivity incarnate. Lord only
knows which is worse.
I'm sure you still remember them. The president regularly called them " my generals
." They were, he claimed , from "central casting"
and there were three of them: retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, who was first
appointed secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and then White House chief of
staff; Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who became the president's national security
advisor; and last (but hardly least) retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, whom Trump
particularly adored for his nickname "
Mad Dog " and appointed as secretary of defense. Of him, the president said, "If I'm
doing a movie, I pick you, General Mattis, who's doing really well."
They were referred to in Washington and in the media more generally as "
the adults in the room ," indicating what most observers (as well as insiders) seemed to
think about the president – that he was, in effect, the impulsive, unpredictable,
self-obsessed
toddler in that same room. All of them had been commanders in the very conflicts that
Donald Trump had labeled "
ridiculous Endless Wars " and were distinctly hawkish and uncritical of those same wars
(like the rest of the U.S. high command). It was even rumored that, as "adults," Kelly and
Mattis had made a
private pact not to be out of the country at the same time for fear of what might happen
in their absence. By the end of 2018, of course, all three were gone. "My generals" were no
more, but the toddler remained.
As TomDispatch regular , West Point graduate (class of 2005), and retired Army Major
Danny Sjursen explains in remarkable detail today, while the president finally tossed "his"
generals in the nearest trash can, the "adults" (and you do have to keep that word in
quotation marks) didn't, in fact, leave the toddler alone in the Oval Office. They simply
militarized and demilitarized at the same time. In fact, one class from West Point, that of
1986, from which both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
graduated, is essentially everywhere in a distinctly militarized (if still officially
civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the Trumpian moment. ~ Tom
"Courage Never Quits"? : The Price of Power and West Point's Class of 1986
By Danny Sjursen
Every West Point class votes on an official motto. Most are then inscribed on their class
rings. Hence, the pejorative West Point label " ring knocker ." (As
legend has it, at military meetings a West Pointer "need only knock his large ring on the
table and all Pointers present are obliged to rally to his point of view.") Last August, the
class of 2023 announced theirs: "Freedom Is
Not Free." Mine from the class of 2005 was "Keeping Freedom Alive." Each class takes pride in
its motto and, at least theoretically, aspires to live according to its sentiments, while
championing the accomplishments of fellow graduates.
But some cohorts do stand out. Take the class of 1986 (" Courage Never Quits
"). As it happens, both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
are members of that very class, as are a surprisingly
wide range of influential leaders in Congress, corporate America, the Pentagon, the
defense industry, lobbying firms, Big Pharma ,
high-end financial
services , and even security-consulting firms. Still, given their striking hawkishness on
the subject of American war-making, Esper and Pompeo rise above the rest. Even in a pandemic,
they are as good as their class motto. When it comes to this country's wars, neither of them
ever quits.
Once upon a time, retired Lieutenant General Douglas Lute (Class of '75), a former US
Ambassador to NATO and a senior commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, taught both Esper and
Pompeo in his West Point social sciences class. However, it was Pompeo, the class of '86
valedictorian, whom Lute singled out for praise,
remembering him as "a very strong student – fastidious, deliberate." Of course, as
the Afghanistan Papers, released by
the Washington Post late last year, so starkly revealed ,
Lute told an interviewer that, like so many US officials, he "didn't have the foggiest notion
of what we were undertaking in Afghanistan." Though at one point he was President George W.
Bush's "Afghan war czar ," the
general never expressed such doubts publicly and his record of dissent is hardly an
impressive one. Still, on one point at least, Lute was on target: Esper and Pompeo are
smart and that's what worries me (as in the phrase "too smart for their own good").
Esper, a former Raytheon lobbyist, had
particularly hawkish views on Russia and China before he ever took over at the Pentagon
and he wasn't alone when it came to the urge to continue America's wars. Pompeo, then a
congressman, exhibited a striking pre-Trump-era foreign policy pugnacity
, particularly vis-à-vis the Islamic world . It has
since solidified into a veritable
obsession with toppling the Iranian regime.
Their militarized obsessions have recently taken striking form in two ways: the secretary
of defense
instructed US commanders to prepare plans to escalate combat against Iranian-backed
militias in Iraq, an order the mission's senior leader there, Lieutenant General Robert "Pat"
White,
reportedly resisted; meanwhile, the secretary of state evidently is
eager to convince President Trump to use the Covid-19 pandemic, now devastating Iran,
to bomb that country and further strangle it with sanctions. Worse yet, Pompeo might be just
cunning enough to convince his ill-informed, insecure boss (so open to clever flattery) that
war is the answer.
The militarism of both men matters greatly, but they hardly pilot the ship of state alone,
any more than Trump does (whatever he thinks). Would that it were the case. Sadly, even if
voters threw them all out, the disease runs much deeper than them. Enter the rest of the
illustrative class of '86.
As it happens, Pompeo's and Esper's classmates permeate the deeper structure of
imperial America . And let's admit it, they are, by the numbers, an impressive crew. As
another '86 alumnus, Congressman Mark Green (R-TN), bragged
on the House floor in 2019, "My class [has] produced 18 general officers 22-plus presidents
and CEOs of major corporations two state legislators [and] three judges," as well as "at
least four deans and chancellors of universities." He closed his remarks by exclaiming,
"Courage never quits, '86!"
However, for all his gushing, Green's list conceals much. It illuminates neither the
mechanics nor the motives of his illustrious classmates; that is, what they're actually doing
and why. Many are key players in a corporate-military machine bent on, and reliant on,
endless war for profit and professional advancement. A brief look at key '86ers offers
insight into President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-industrial complex in 2020 – and
it should take your breath away.
The West Point Mafia
The core group of '86 grads cheekily
refer to themselves as "the West Point mafia." And for some, that's an uplifting thought.
Take Joe DePinto, CEO of 7-Eleven. He
says that he's "someone who sleeps better at night knowing that those guys are in the
positions they're in." Of course, he's an
'86 grad, too .
Back when I called the academy home, we branded such self-important cadets "
toolbags ." More than a decade later, when I taught there, I found my students still
using the term. Face facts, however: those "toolbags,"
thick as thieves today, now run the show in Washington (and despite their busy schedules,
they still find time to socialize as a group).
Given Donald Trump's shady past – one doesn't build an Atlantic City
casino-and-hotel empire without "
mobbing-it-up " – that Mafia moniker is actually fitting. So perhaps it's worth
thinking of Mike Pompeo as the president's latest consigliere . And since gangsters
rarely countenance a challenge without striking back, Lieutenant General White should watch
his back after his prudent attempt to stop the further escalation of America's wars in Iraq
and Iran in the midst of a deadly global pandemic. Worse yet for him, he's not a West Pointer
(though he did, oddly enough, earn his Army commission on the
very day that class of '86 graduated). White's once promising career is unlikely to be
long for this world.
In addition to Esper and Pompeo, other Class of '86 alums serve in key executive branch
roles. They include the
vice chief of staff of the Army General Joseph Martin, the director of the Army National Guard,
the commander of NATO's Allied Land
Command, the
deputy commanding general of Army Forces Command, and the
deputy commanding general of Army Cyber Command. Civilian-side classmates in the Pentagon
serve as: deputy assistant
secretary of the Army for installations, energy, and environment; a
civilian aide to the secretary of the Army; and the director of stabilization and peace
operations policy for the secretary of defense. These Pentagon career civil servants aren't,
strictly speaking, part of the "Mafia" itself, but two Pompeo loyalists are indeed charter
members.
Pompeo brought
Ulrich Brechbuhl and Brian Butalao, two of his closest cadet friends, in from the corporate
world. The three of them had, at one point, served as CEO, CFO,
and COO of Thayer Aerospace, named for the " father" of West Point, Colonel
Sylvanus Thayer, and started with Koch Industries
seed money . Among other things, that corporation sold
the Pentagon military aircraft components.
Brechbuhl and Butalao were given senior
positions at the CIA when Pompeo was its director. Currently, Brechbuhl is the State
Department's counselor (and reportedly
Pompeo's de facto chief of staff), while Butalao serves as under secretary for
management. According to his official bio, Butalao is responsible "for managing the State
Department on a day-to-day basis and [serving as its] Chief Operating Officer." Funny, that
was his exact position under
Pompeo at that aerospace company.
Still, this Mafia trio can't run the show by themselves. The national security structure's
tentacles are so much longer than that. They reach all the way to K Street and Capitol
Hill.
From Congress to K Street: The Enablers
Before Trump tapped Pompeo to head
the CIA and then the State Department, he represented Wichita, Kansas, home to Koch Industries, in the House of
Representatives. In fact, Pompeo rode his ample
funding from the political action committee of the billionaire Koch brothers straight to
the Hill. So linked was he to those fraternal right-wing energy tycoons and so
protective of their interests that he was
dubbed "the congressman from Koch." The relationship was mutually beneficial. Pompeo's
selection as secretary of state solidified
the previously
strained relationship of the brothers with President Trump.
The '86 Mafia's current congressional heavyweight, however, is Mark Green. An early
Trump supporter, he regularly tried to
shield the president from impeachment as a
minority member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The Tennessee congressman
nearly became Trump's secretary of the Army, but ultimately
withdrew his nomination because of controversies that included sponsoring
gender-discriminatory bills and commenting
that "transgender is a disease."
Legislators like Green, in turn, take their foreign-policy marching orders from the
military's corporate suppliers. Among those, Esper, of course, represents the gold standard
when it comes to " revolving-door " defense
lobbying. Just before ascending the Pentagon summit, pressed by Senator Elizabeth Warren
during his confirmation hearings, he patently
refused to "recuse himself from all matters related to" Raytheon, his former
employer and the nation's third-largest defense contractor. (And that was even before its
recent
merger with United Technologies Corporation, which once employed another Esper classmate as a senior
vice president.) Incidentally, one of Raytheon's " biggest
franchises " is the Patriot missile defense system, the very weapon being
rushed to Iraq as I write, ostensibly as a check on Pompeo's favored villain, Iran.
Less well known is the handiwork of another '86 grad, longtime lobbyist and CNN paid
contributor David Urban, who first met the president in 2012 and still
recalls how "we clicked immediately." The consummate Washington insider, he backed Trump
"when nobody else thought he stood a chance" and in 2016 was his senior campaign adviser in
the pivotal swing state of Pennsylvania.
Esper and Urban have been
close for more than 30 years. As cadets, they served in the same unit during the Persian
Gulf War. It was Urban who introduced Esper to his wife. Both later graced the Hill 's
list of Washington's top lobbyists. Since 2002, Urban has been a partner and is now
president of a
consulting giant, the American Continental Group. Among its clients : Raytheon and 7-Eleven.
It's hard to overstate Urban's role. He seems to have
landed Pompeo and Esper their jobs in the Trump administration and was a key go-between
in marrying class of '86 backbenchers and moneymen to that bridegroom of our moment, The
Donald.
Greasing the Machine: The Moneymen
Another '86er also passed through that famed military-industrial revolving door. Retired
Colonel Dan Sauter left his position as chief of staff of the 32nd Army Air and Missile
Defense Command for one at giant weapons maker Lockheed Martin as business developer for the
very systems his old unit employed. Since May 2019, he's directed Lockheed's
$1.5 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program in Saudi Arabia.
Lockheed's THAAD systems have streamed
into that country to protect the Kingdom, even as Pompeo continually threatens Iran.
If such corporate figures are doing the selling, it's the Pentagon, naturally, that's
doing the buying. Luckily, there are '86 alumni in key positions on the purchasing end as
well, including a retired brigadier general who now serves as the Pentagon's principal
adviser to the under secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
Finally, there are other key consultants linked to the military-industrial complex who are
also graduates of the class of '86. They include a senior vice
president of Hillwood – a massive domestic and international real estate
development company, chaired by Ross Perot, Jr. –
formerly a consultant to the government of the United Arab Emirates. The Emiratis are US
allies in the fight against Pompeo's Iranian nemesis and, in 2019,
awarded Raytheon a $1.5 billion contract to supply key components for its air force
missile launchers.
Another classmate is a managing partner for Patriot Strategies,
which consults for corporations and the government but also separately lands hefty defense contracts itself. His
previous " ventures " included
"work in telecommunications in the Middle East and technical security upgrades at US
embassies worldwide."
Yet another grad , Rick
Minicozzi, is the founder and CEO of Thayer Leader Development Group (TLDG), which prides
itself on "building" corporate leaders. TLDG clients include:
7-Eleven, Cardinal Glass, EMCOR, and Mercedes-Benz. All either have or had '86ers at the
helm. The company's CEO also owns the Thayer
Hotel located right on West Point's grounds, which hosts many of the company's
lectures and other events. Then there's the retired colonel who, like me, taught on the West
Point history faculty. He's now the CEO of Battlefield
Leadership , which helps corporate leaders "learn from the past" in order to "prepare for
an ever-changing business landscape."
A Class-wide Conflict of Interest
Don't for a moment think these are all "bad" people. That's not faintly my point. One
prominent '86 grad, for instance, is Lieutenant General Eric Wesley, the
deputy of Army Futures Command. He was my brigade commander at Fort Riley, Kansas, in
2009 and I found him competent, exceptionally empathetic, and a decidedly decent man, which
is probably true of plenty of '86ers.
So what exactly is my point here? I'm not for a second charging conspiracy or even
criminal corruption. The lion's share of what all these figures do is perfectly legal. In
reality, the way the class of '86 has permeated the power structure only reflects the nature
of the carefully
crafted , distinctly undemocratic systems through which the military-industrial complex
and our political world operate by design. Most of what they do couldn't, in fact, be more
legal in a world of never-ending American wars and national security budgets that eternally
go
through the roof . After all, if any of these figures had acted in anything but a
perfectly legal fashion, they might have run into a classmate of theirs who recently led the
FBI's corruption unit in New Jersey – before, that is, he retired and became CEO of a
global security consulting firm
. (Sound familiar?)
And that's my point, really. We have a system in Washington that couldn't be more lawful
and yet, by any definition, the class of '86 represents one giant conflict of interest (and
they don't stand alone). Alums from that year are now ensconced in every level of the
national security state: from the White House to the Pentagon to Congress to K Street to
corporate boardrooms. And they have both power and a deep stake, financial or otherwise, in
maintaining or expanding the (forever) warfare state.
They benefit from America's permanent military mobilization, its never-ending economic
war-footing ,
and all that comes with it. Ironically, this will inevitably include the blood of future West
Point graduates, doomed to serve in their hopeless crusades. Think of it all as a macabre
inversion of their class motto in which it's not their courage but that of younger graduates
sent off to this country's hopeless wars that they will never allow to "quit."
Speaking of true courage, lately the only exemplar we've had of it in those wars is
General "Pat" White. It seems that he, at least, refused to kiss the proverbial rings of
those Mafia men of '86.
But of course, he's not part of their "family," is he?
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.com. His work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
Everyone has heard, ad nauseam, about the "
Special Relationship " between the United States and Britain. Accordingly, the few
Americans who dare identify their country as an empire – past or present – tend
to analogize with the British model. While the similarities between Washington and
London-style imperialism are manifold – along with the distinct differences – in
other important ways, the more appropriate parallel is with France. For the French,
unlike
the Brits (for the most part), and like modern Americans (in a more indirect way),
imagined their colonial subjects as vital, moldable constituents (if rarely citizens) of a
grand francophone project for good.
I know, I know, the French and Americans can't stand each other, right? Well, sure, theirs
has been a contentious relationship for centuries – politically, culturally, you name
it. True enough, but lest we forget that the U.S. formed in opposition to British
Empire, and – though rarely mentioned in the dominant memories of American
Revolutionary
triumphalism – the colonists' military victory would've been far more difficult (if
not impossible) without French intervention on their behalf.
No doubt, the relationship between the US and its first, and longest, ally has been filled
with ups and downs: one thinks of the
Quasi-War (1798), FDR-Charles De Gaulle world war
drama , Paris' semi-" withdrawal " from NATO (1966),
and, of course, the Iraq War dispute-" freedom fries " charade
(2003), for starters. Still, in key ways, I'd submit that it is precisely because the French
and American models of governance and global policy have so much in common that they –
like rival siblings – so often squabble.
Peas in an Exceptional Pod of Delusion
While all historical analogizing must proceed cautiously – and with recognition of
the limits of deduction – the broad similarities are staggering. It is the very
grandiose idealism – and consequent universalism – in the wake of their
inextricably
connected revolutions, that has set the French and American hegemons (and empires) apart.
While the American variety has tended more towards (at least an aspirational) multiculturalism than that
of the French, both post-revolutionary nations have been certain of – and applied
– the necessary and proper exportability of their universally "positive"
cultural-political systems.
Indeed, in spite of their rather different ( theoretical )
approaches to internal immigrants, with some far-right wing exceptions
, to be French or American – rather uniquely – has been as much idea as
nationality. There have, of course, been both positive and negative applications inherent to
this notion. One common output has been a common dedication to the nebulous canard of
national "greatness." Indeed, Donald Trump – and Ronald Reagan
before him – can be said to have channeled none other than Charles De Gaulle, who
wrote in his war
memoirs, way back in 1954, that "France cannot be France without greatness."
Consequently, by extension, there have been (necessarily) tragic consequences for the
millions of victims of an imperialism that assumes not only metropole superiority, but that
inside every Algerian (or Afghan) is a Frenchman (or American) waiting to be unzipped .
Such is the logical conclusion of exceptionalism – that most treacherous of all
imperial brands.
There are more specific Franco-American likenesses worth noting as well. Despite the cozy
rhetoric of US multiculturalism and France's assimilation, both states ultimately adhere to a
notion that national values – however vaguely framed – heat their
respective citizen melting pots. And both fill their prisons with the detritus of that
program's historical failures. By now, the reality, and broad contours of, America's world-
record mass incarceration
– particularly of black and brown bodies are widely reported. Less well known, but of a
piece with the US model, is that by 2003, France's Muslims accounted for seven percent of the
population but
70 to 80 percent of its prisoners.
Furthermore, both have lengthy records of post-colonial and neo-imperial adventurism
across far-flung swathes of the the globe. In fact, American and French wars have been the
West's bloodiest since 1945, and also often complimentary – whereby, for example,
Washington quite literally took up Paris' mantle in
Vietnam. Furthermore, even today, France – though it pales in comparison to America's
veritable " empire of bases "
– maintains perhaps
the world's second largest network of overseas military footholds. That deployment and
intervention bonanza has all "blown back" at the French and American homelands, as both have
been targeted – recently at two of the highest Western rates – by transnational (or
foreign-influenced) "terrorists" from the very regions where they most often militarily
intervene.
Joint Exhibit Africa
Lastly, and most relevant to the current moment, both Paris and Washington have had a
tragic tortured relationship with – and become the favorite targets of – the more
violent flavors of political Islam. Of late, for the Americans, and more longstanding for the
French, that has particularly been the case in Africa. The truth is there are only two
countries which station – and unleash – significant numbers of troops in Africa
today: France and the United States.
The post-colonial pervasiveness of the French presence in Africa was itself exceptional
– at least until the United States truly got in the game in a more overt post-9/11 way.
As late as 1990, France had troops stationed in a remarkable 22
African countries. Even the once great British Empire's postcolonial role paled
in comparison. Furthermore, in a tactic the U.S. would later – and continue
to – make its own, France signed military defense pacts with 27
African states during the period 1961-92, including with three former British, and a few
Belgian, colonies. Paris also spearheaded three further
tactics common to Washington throughout and beyond the decolonization and Cold War eras:
fomenting coups, empowering dictators, and " dancing "
with heinous (sometimes genocidal) monsters. In several repulsive cases, some combination of
all three were waged as joint Franco-American exercises.
Paris and Washington "Behind the Scenes"
Since the end of the Second World War, when a defeated France sought to regain the
physical space, and glory, of its empire – most of which was in Africa – it
unleashed its external intelligence service, then known as the SDECE , first to stifle colonial nationalism, and
then, begrudgingly, to sustain real power over the newly independent states. Whereas
the equivalent US CIA spent the Cold War working behind the scenes to counter even the whiff
of Soviet influence, the SDECE was more concerned with stifling any true hints of economic or
political autonomy in its former domains. Nonetheless, not always, but more often than not,
Paris' and Washington's goals were symbiotic.
In the period after the " Year of Africa " –
when 14 French (and 17 total) colonies gained independence – the SDECE (after 1981
known as the DGSE) instigated
several coups , and been implicated
in more than a few presidential assassinations. In more farcical cases – take the
Central African Republic (CAR) – the SDECE even planned coups against leaders it had
previously "couped" into office in the first place. The losers were always the common
people, mind you, and it should thus come as little surprise that France was drawn back into the CAR over
this past decade in response to spiraling religious and ethnic conflict. Naturally, the CIA
played the same game all over the continent – toppling a few governments of its own
and
planning to assassinate prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo – but for the
most part, Paris guarded its "special," depraved, role in Francophone West and Central
Africa.
During the Cold War, and – albeit with some different motives – ever since,
Franco-American intel and diplomatic services have gleefully backed any strongman willing to
support Western goals or oppose the West's (perceived) external enemies. The outcomes have
repeatedly been tragic. Both Washington and Paris helped install and then backed Zaire's
(Congo's) brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko's vicious 35 year reign – the French to the
bitter end, even after the US cut him lose after he'd outlived his Cold War usefulness. Paris
even
ran one final covert operation – which included three fighter aircraft and European
mercenaries – in an unsuccessful attempt to stem the rebel tide in 1997. Previously,
France installed and/or backed dictators who banned political parties, and tortured or
murdered opponents in Cameroon, Niger, Chad, and the Central African Republic, among
others.
In the particularly odious case of Chad, Paris and Washington alternately worked at cross
or joint purposes to back one authoritarian thug after another. Both the SDECE and CIA
funneled cash and weapons to a slew of leaders who exploited and widened ethnic and religious
(Muslim north vs. Christian and animist south) conflicts and waged war on their own people.
Much of this unfolded in the name of a lengthy proxy war with Libya's Ghadafi regime –
which France would take a leading role in toppling
along with the US in 2011 – that ultimately destabilized the entire North African
region. The unintended perils of backing military strongmen was on stark display again
recently when a U.S.-trained captain
led a 2012 coup in Mali which drew both American and French troops back
into a prolonged indecisive intervention.
The rarely recounted record of French support for African monsters – usually vicious
rebel groups – is exceptionally hideous. For starters, Paris
backed Biafran separatists in Nigeria's bloody civil war (1967-70) with 350 tons of
weapons, and was the prime backer of the Rwandan Hutu regime – and its later rebel
manifestations in the extended Congo civil wars (1996-2003) – that perpetrated the
worst genocide (1994) since the Nazi Holocaust. If the US didn't always side with France in
these cases, it scantly opposed the macabre missions.
The Franco-American (Exceptionalist) Forever War Curse
In Africa, both France's (since 1960) and America's (after 2001) foreign policy has been
veritably defined by hyper-interventionism, and low-intensity forever wars. The French
have militarily intervened no less than 50 times – in at least 13 countries
– since official decolonization. It has waged its own lengthy or seemingly forever wars
in Chad (1968-75, 77-80 83-84),
Ivory Coast (2002-present), and Mali
. (2013-present) In Chad, the US has recently
taken the baton from France and continues to bolster a regime ranked by Transparency
International in 2010 as the sixth most corrupt on earth.
Indeed, today the French and American militaries are engaged in a joint adventure chasing
Islamist "terror" ghosts across Francophone West and Central Africa. According to AFRICOM's
own internal
documents , the US military now has "enduring" "footprints" in six, and "non-enduring"
presence in four, former French colonies in the region. Taking that incestuous overlap a step
further, Washington and Paris are together simultaneously engaged in
active operations in four of those countries, and jointly station troops in at least
two
others . Britain, by contrast, has troops in only four African countries in any
abiding sense, and is far less active in combat. While hardly any Americans –
and to a lesser extent Frenchmen – can locate, or in certain cases pronounce, Djibouti,
Gabon, Niger, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Chad, Tunisia, Mali, or Cameroon, the stark fact is that
both countries are meddling, and often at war, in each of those distant locales.
American and French soldiers, alike, continue to die in these, at best, tangential
hot spots in the name of domestic populations that don't give a damn and hardly take any
notice. In Africa, at least (though not the Middle East), French military losses have been
even higher than American casualties. Since 2013, 30 French troops have
died in Mali alone. For all that cost in French blood and treasure – more than
$750 million annually – the Sahel is even today " slipping out of control ." The same
could be said of the American investment – ample billions spent and thousands of troops
extensively deployed
in some 15 countries as of 2019 – in Africa since 9/11.
The result of all this has been a joint Franco-American counter-productivity crisis both
for the region and homeland security. The blowback synergy is perhaps best illustrated in the
linked Libyan-Mali debacle, especially since Paris and Washington (along with London)
shamelessly masked an
outright (Ghadafi) regime change in Tripoli under the guise of the UN's Responsibility
to Protect (R2P) concept.
From 2007-08, US special forces inserted themselves and
assisted the Malian government in its decidedly local ethnic fight with Tuareg
separatists in the country's north. Simultaneously, US trained and backed forces in nearby
Niger committed atrocities against fellow Tuareg civilians – which only added to their
ethnic grievances. Then, that temporarily tamped-down insurgency exploded when it was
bolstered in 2012 by fighters and weapons which flooded south from the chaos induced by
NATO's 2011 regime change war in Libya. A year later, the French army was back in its former
colony. They've yet to leave.
So, essentially, France – through its earlier colonial divide and rule policies
– and the US, by militarily meddling and choosing sides in local matters (and
catalyzing instability in Libya), created the Tuareg "problem" in Mali (and Niger)
that both Western powers then intervened in, and are still trying, to solve.
Taking stock of this recent U.S.-backed Francophone African history repeated
as farce , one is reminded of the
rejoinder of a long dead French Algerian settler philosopher: "Each act of repression
each act of police torture has deepened the despair and violence of those subjected [and] in
this way given birth to terrorists who in turn have given birth to more police." Or, one
might add in the contemporary African context: more French and American soldiers .
The Questions We (Both) Dare Not Ask
In another absurd commonality, the French and Americans have come to uncritically
accept the inevitability of interminable warfare in Africa without asking why. Neither
Paris nor Washington has much bothered to self-pose the salient question at hand: Why
has violent Islamism exploded in Africa (or the Mideast, for that matter); and why now
? It certainly can't be as simple as the Bush-era
trope : "They hate us for our freedoms."
If that were the case, one would expect the jihadi wave sooner, since, after all, French
and American democracy – such as it is – is far older than the post-colonial, or
post-9/11 eras. See, but there's the rub: exceptional entities don't trouble
themselves with such questions; that sort of doubt or reflection wouldn't occur to a
universalist policymaker in Paris or Washington.
Naturally, if French or American leaders had lowered themselves to such base (you
know, human) levels, and even deigned to touch a toe in some self-awareness waters, a few
inconvenient causation explanations might ripple outward. Like that, perhaps, the spread of
Islamist "terror" has deep roots in the phenomena of colonization, decolonization, neo-colonialism
and global-financial debt-imperialism
. And that there is a proven counterproductive
relationship between the level of foreign troop deployments and overall violence in Africa
– I.e. more French Foreign Legionnaires, and more (disturbingly similar) American "
Praetorians
" of the special operations command, has only sent regional jihadism skyrocketing.
Finally, there's the minor matter that the " Washington
consensus " response – through influence over IMF and World Bank policies –
to the post-1973 oil shocks and free-fall of global commodity prices, didn't (and wasn't
designed) to stop the number of Global Southerners living on less than a dollar a day rising
from 70 to 290 million by 1998. In the face of such poverty, locals can be forgiven for their
sneaking suspicion that both the Declarations of Independence, and of the Rights
of Man , offer rather paltry answers. Now, whether the West, however constructed, bears
all the blame for that might be debatable; but through African eyes, what's certain is the
recent infusion of Franco-American troops and corporations is not seen as a net
positive for the people. Jihadis may be monsters – and we must admit they often are
– but at least they are African (or Arab) monsters.
To distant, exceptionalist ears in the comfort of the White House (or the Élysée
Palace ), such sentiments seem resoundingly blasphemous. The cultural and political
universalism of American or French "values" – even if neither society ever manages to
internally agree about what those are – seem a given. To reject Washingtonian or
Parisian liberty largesse is seen as almost proof-positive that intransigent Africans were
communists – or now "terrorists" – after all. Furthermore, the unsophisticated
locals must've been put up to it by "real" enemies: the Soviets (pre-1991), or today,
obviously the Chinese. According to this prevailing logic, more's the reason to flood the
region with ample troops and around and around we go.
Passing the Torch?
Today, and quite
historically , both the French and Americans simplify a gray, complex world to their own
– and global peoples' – detriment. Elizabeth Schmidt's two recent exhaustive
studies of foreign interventions in Africa –
during and since the
Cold War – concluded that such actions "tended to exacerbate rather than alleviate
African conflicts." Consider that a scholarly understatement. In the case of exponentially
increased US military involvement since the founding of AFRICOM, credible
recent analyses demonstrate how strikingly counterproductive such missions have been on
the continent.
When it comes to the discrete – and often joint – French and American
interventions in Africa these days, sequence and timing matter. Until 2007, the generally
limited US military actions on the continent fell under the responsibility of United States
European Command (EUCOM) – which in addition to countering the Russian Bear, had
jurisdiction over 43 (what were seen as) backwater sub-Saharan African countries. When it
came to actual troop "boots-on-the-ground," France was still the military meddler
extraordinaire. All that changed, slowly after 9/11, and with immediacy when President Bush
announced the creation of the Pentagon's new Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007.
This was the pivotal moment, a changing of the economic and military neo-imperial guard of
sorts. It is unlikely coincidental that the permanent US military presence became official at
almost precisely the tipping point moment (2008) when China eclipsed France
as Africa's largest trading partner. Indeed, the ostensible "threat" of the Chinese Dragon
– despite it still having just
one base there – as much as "terrorism," has easily replaced the convenient canard
of Soviet infusion as the justification for perpetual US military intervention in Africa. In
the futile and inessential attempt to "defeat" Islamist jihadism and exclude China, France is
now the junior – but essential, given its existing local "knowledge" and neocolonial
relationships – partner on the continent.
With respect to Paris' incessant and indecisive warfare – and ineffective strategy
– in Africa, Hannah Armstrong, of the International Crisis Group, lamented
that "In the same way that French reality TV and pop music is 15 years behind the US, French
counterterrorism mimics US counterterrorism of 15 years ago." That may be strictly accurate
with respect to the recent failures in the Sahel that she analyzed – but widen the lens
a bit, and it becomes clear Armstrong has it backwards. Historically, since 1960, the French
have tried it all before; Uncle Sam was often behind (or backing) them, then (as in Vietnam)
willingly took the torch, and now fails where Paris already has.
In Africa, given that most of the current fighting is in the Francophone sphere upon which
Paris – uniquely
among former European imperialists – has maintained an historic
politico-military-economic post-colonial grip, it is worth asking just who is using
who in the relationship.
In other words, qui ( really ) bono?
Author's Note: As some readers may have noticed, I have (accidentally) embarked on a
sort of informal empire-analogy series, with a particularly African-inflection. In case
you've missed them, check out the links below to the previous articles (in a variety of
outlets) on contemporary American connections to past and present empires:
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.comHis work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
If ever there was a time, it's now. Oil has bottomed out. They can top off the national
reserves on the cheap and profit when their war sends prices up again. Maybe it's why The
Orange Goober has ordered the Navy to "shoot down" any Iranian boats that
harass/approach/rudely gesture at US ships.
Ritter's article worries me. There is now a sales argument for war: "don't worry about oil
prices going sky high, Iran can't use that weapon against us now!".
You over excitable little Iran war-monkeys really should take time out of your busy
war-monkey daily-schedules to learn something about the topography of Iran and it's defensive
and offensive military capabilities.
It would certainly save everyone else from having to listen to you being wrong yet
again.
You're on the right track. There's a huge supply glut as all forms of storage are mostly
filled as proven by the negative WTI pricing. Global demand is still being destroyed. War in
the Persian Gulf region will further destroy demand; and since very little oil's being
shipped from there, the supply glut won't be used up anytime soon--certainly not quickly
enough to see a sharp rebound in oil price. The crucial point is domestic US refineries have
cut back their runs as their margins are even thinner than before, plus demand destruction is
still occurring, thus the domestic storage glut. The wife and I jested last night if we only
had a rail spur we could order up a couple of tank cars full of unleaded at the current very
distressed price and be set for a longtime.
As The
Saker notes in his latest , Trump must make the voting public look everywhere except at
him and Congress, the bellowing at Iran being part of that entire theatre. Yes, a mistake
could have very negative consequences for the USN and all US assets in the region as well as
Occupied Palestine--the overall underlying dynamic hasn't changed since Trump broke the Iran
Nuclear Treaty. Too add further insult to Trump and Pompeo, Iran's doing a
much better job at containing COVID-19 than the Outlaw US Empire :
"The US pandemic death toll is this week heading above 50,000 compared with Iran's figure
of 5,300. Considering the respective population numbers of 330 and 80 million that suggests
Iran is doing a much better job at containing the virus. On a per-capita basis, according to
publicly available data, Iran's mortality rate is less than half that of the US.
"This is while the US has sanctioned Iran to the hilt. American sanctions – arguably
illegal under international law – have hit Iran's ability to import medical supplies to
cope with COVID-19 and other fatal diseases, yet Iran through its own resources is evidently
managing the crisis much better than the US."
As with the Tar Baby, the more wrestling the Outlaw US Empire does the weaker it gets.
They can't invade. That's your own moronic straw-man. And yes, it would further cut supply
and prices would go up. The current bottom is due to overproduction but so long as
civilization cranks along the oil gets used eventually.
"Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the
senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. -- California
Evidence Code sec 140
Even the NYT acknowledged (before it erased the text in its story on Reade that noted
there were no other sexual misconduct charges pending against him other than that long
history of assaults and sniffing and hands-on, text removed by the Times at the instance of
the Biden campaign staff?
Here's the original text: " The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,
beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."
Waiting for the apologists to tell us why the edit to remove the last clause starting "beyond
" is just "Good journalism."
He and Trump are bad examples of the male part of the species. Nothing to choose that I
can see, other than who among the people that revise those bribes to them will be the first
in line at the MMT watering hole
i had a lengthy discussion about this with my brother and sil, it came down to her saying
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT re bidens history of being a ttl letch plus possible rapist and my
brother questioning what is obvious discomfort in multiple video evidence.
They said defeating trump was paramount to anything against biden. i simply give up at
this point.
Lots of partisan hackery and TDS going around in the last few years in once respectable
lefty publications. Mother Jones has gone completely to hell rather than raising any, as was
once their mission statement. I haven't read the Nation as much in recent years – I let
my subscription lapse a while ago as I found I just couldn't keep up with reading it.
Coincidentally I think that was about the time I started reading NC. The Nation has a history
of sheepdogging lefties to rally behind bad Dem candidates, which was another reason I didn't
feel bad letting my subscription go.
I do still have my subscription to Harper's but they were getting on my nerves quite a bit
to the point I considered cancelling them too. Rebecca Solnit wrote some truly cringe-worthy
editorials for them after Trump's election. They seem to have removed her from writing the
main editorial so maybe I wasn't the only one who felt she left a little to be desired. I'm
quite fond of the newer woman they have doing editorials, Lionel Shriver. She seems like
she'd fit in quite well here!
I left (pun intended) the Nation pub in the dust way back in the 1990's and buried it post
9/11. Used to be a real good alternative press pub 30-40 years ago. Somewhere along the line
it lost it's way and joined the wishy-washy "gatekeeper' society of "approved news."
RIP
The Nation was a sanity saviour back in late 70s and through 1980s; then something
happened. Not clear when or what, but I know I let my subscription lapse. Tried again later,
but it was never the same. It's mostly unbearable now, except for Stephen Cohen. Walsh has
been in the unbearable category for many years now.
Leonard Pitts just had an editorial in my local paper where he opined that even if Biden
had sexually assaulted Reade, it didn't really matter because we had to vote against
Trump.
I wrote this in reply:
So Leonard Pitts thinks that Biden's alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade isn't disqualifying,
even if true. Strange, he didn't think that way about Brett Kavanagh. I didn't want to attack
the columnist as a hypocrite without being sure, so I looked it up. Here is what he
wrote:
"It's a confluence of facts that speak painfully and pointedly to just how unseriously
America takes men's predations against women. You might disagree, noting that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has asked Ford to testify. But if history is any guide, that will prove
to be a mere formality – a sop to appearances – before the committee recommends
confirmation."
Looks very much like "Well, It's excusable when our guys do it."
Always had a crush on K v d Heuvel. (How's that for an opening to a post about misogyny
and sexual misconduct)?
But can't we disqualify Joe! as the craven proponent of the worst neo-lib policies that
got us exactly where we are today? Or, in polite company, ask politely whether he is even in
a mental state to hand over the keys to the to the family car, let alone the nuclear
football?
Let's take the Id out of IdPol, I don't care if the candidate has green skin and three
eyes if the policies they would enact come within smelling distance of benefiting the 99% (or
more precisely in Joe's case within hair smelling distance).
We can use his personal conduct as a component in our judgement but pleeease can we focus
on the stuff that would actually affect our lives. In his case, for the absolute worse.
(Note: I sincerely doubt whether Joe is currently allowed to drive a car, please oh please
Mr.God-Yahweh-Mohammed-Buddha-Obama can we not let him drive a nation).
Joe Biden's louche son Hunter -- known for his hearty indulgence in drugs and his sexual
adventures with strippers -- is a perfect specimen of humanity under this system. If he gets
more stimulation than others, everyone else should get enough. And if they don't, they mustn't
complain, they should ask for a program.
He is though [candidate of fear]. The absolute driving impulse behind Joe Biden is fear of
Trump. Who is electing Biden because of his ideas and policies? There are articles that
literally say - "Joe, just have a pulse by the time of the election, that's enough for us."
I think that one was in Atlantic.
I mean what is Russiagate, that's pure scaremongering - those Red Russkies are back with
vengeance. The idea of return to safe, secure "normalcy", the good old days of calm and
peace, if only Trump can be removed.
There was nothing illegal in the Ukraine call, therefore no need for the IG to report
it. And until someone got a bee under their bonnet, 2nd hand information did not legally
qualify as "whistle-blowing" but someone changed the reporting form (a piece of paper not a
law of Congress) to hide that little problem.
Exactly. Yes, Trump put people in in charge who wouldn't try to sabotage his agenda
– how awful. Trump also put people in charge to stop the corruption and money
laundering of the Obama appointees. For example, EPA funneling money to environmental
groups by settling instead of fighting lawsuits and then these environmental groups taking
that settlement money and funneling it back to Obama and the Democrats.
The people elected Trump not any of these technocrats. Philip Giraldi seems to be
applauding their subversion of the Republic.
But I can't help thinking that it's payback time for those who wasted Americans' time and
mental energy on the impeachment circus. Anyone who advanced the "get rid of Trump" agenda
should have expected to get canned down the road if the game plan didn't work out.
the idea of Israeli companies feeding at the trough is stomach-churning. Again, those who
do not like this picture maybe should have considered that trying to cut trump off at the
knees and breaking a whole bunch of rules to do so might have blowback in the future. And,
there doesn't seem to be anyone in congress with the stomach or cojones or even conviction to
end the Zionist chumming.
Who in Congress is standing up for the interests of Americans as against those of rich
Israeli entrepreneurs who are taking this country for a ride?
I don't give a flying eff about anyone who participated in the "Get Trump" theatrics. Or
about anyone who gave Obama a pass of the same s -- that Trump does.
The show is all ending very badly for the American people, and the world.
@Anonymous
True enough, but neocons -- or neo-Trots, which is more accurate -- are not loyal to Trump,
or anyone else except each other and Israel. And they are certainly not populists, patriots,
or nationalists.
Trump has hired a bunch of fifth columnists, who will stab him in the back at every
opportunity.
If anything, the greatest failing of Trump was that, after he took office, he surrounded
himself with advisors who were opposed to his agenda – and the agenda that the American
people elected him to enact.
It is true, government officials should not be personally loyal to the president. But they
should dutifully try to enact his policies, or else resign in protest. To do less is to
subvert democracy (or at least, whatever is left of it). Although it must be admitted Trump
is increasingly doing the worst of both worlds: surrounding himself with hostile officials
for things the people want (like no more pointless foreign wars), and surrounding himself
with sycophants when its for crony capitalism
As far as stopping immigration being unconstitutional, with respect, unconstitutional is
whatever 500 billionaires don't want. So you see, separating the alleged children of people
illegally crossing the border from their parents is clearly unconstitutional, but separating
people convicted of any other crime from their children is perfectly OK. Because the rich
want cheap labor.
But if the rich no longer need massive immigration to lower wages – which may be the
case for the near future – then the rich will no longer care about 'immigrants.'
Indeed, if illegal immigration hurt the profits of the rich, it would be legal to machine gun
migrants at the border – in fact, it would then be unconstitutional not to!
The Obama-Trump continuities you cite are very relevant here. Both heads of state behave as
figureheads, knuckling under to permit continued CIA impunity (Obama w.r.t. widespread and
systematic torture and murder and aggression, Trump w.r.t. ARCA.) They behave identically in
terms of abuse of function and trading in influence, subjecting all regulators to industry
control.
The only difference between Obama and Trump is their inside v. outside strategy. Obama was
third-generation dynastic CIA nomenklatura, and after his early misstep of promising to obey
the supreme law of the land on torture, Obama took CIA direction without demur, up to and
including the crime of aggression of TIMBER SYCAMORE. Trump, by contrast, follows the Nixon
template, attempting to replace CIA focal points surrounding him with "loyalists." When Nixon
did it, CIA cadres leveled the same charge. But Nixon put Schlesinger in as DCI to extract
the crown jewels and shitcan a bunch of the worst criminals. Carter took the outsider's path
too.
Nixon was purged in the CIA's bloodless Watergate coup; Carter was ousted by CIA's October
Surprise. We should consider whether COVID-19 collateral damage will be used to discredit
Trump, who evidently has less workplace discretion than a McDonald's fry cook. At a key
juncture of the outbreak CIA frogmarched Trump through the synthetic crisis of the Soleimani
assassination.
So of course the government is criminal. It was chartered as a criminal enterprise at
inception in Sction 202, 73 years ago. In the resulting kleptocracy, IGs perform a
superfluous function. And every CIA inspector general is paid specifically to be a criminal
scumbag. The IG reviewing CIA's most open-and-shut crime against humanity, its torture gulag,
criticized it because it didn't work, intently ignoring the supreme law of the land that says
nothing justifies torture.
So let's not get all verklempt about some IGs. IGs are nothing but a Gehlen-type apparat
generating legal pretexts for manifestly illegal acts. Fuck em if they can't take a joke.
"... To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community, which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after he was elected, his presidency ..."
"... While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly everyone surrounding the president ..."
"... Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People. ..."
The 24/7 intensified media coverage of the coronavirus story has meant that other news has
either been ignored or relegated to the back pages, never to be seen again. The Middle East has
been on a boil but coverage of the Trump administration's latest
moves against Iran has been so insignificant as to be invisible. Meanwhile closer to home,
the declaration by the ubiquitous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that current president of
Venezuela Nicolas Maduro is a drug trafficker did generate somewhat of a ripple, as did
dispatch of warships to the Caribbean to intercept the alleged drugs, but that story also
died.
Of more interest perhaps is the tale of the continued purge of government officials,
referred to as "draining the swamp," by President Donald Trump as it could conceivably have
long-term impact on how policy is shaped in Washington. Prior to the virus partial lockdown,
some of the impending shakeup within the
intelligence community (IC) and Pentagon were commented on in the media, but developments
since that time have been less reported, even when several inspectors-general were removed.
To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency. Whether one argues that what took place was due to a "Deep
state" or Establishment conspiracy or rather just based on personal ambition by key players,
the reality was that a number of top officials seem to have forgotten the oaths they swore to
the constitution when it came to Donald Trump.
Be that as it may, beyond the musical chairs that have characterized the senior level
appointments in the first three years of the Trump administration, there has been a concerted
effort to remove "disloyal" members of the intelligence community, with disloyal generally
being the label applied to holdovers from the Bush and Obama administrations. The February
appointment of U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard "Ric" Grenell as interim Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), a position that he will hold simultaneously with his ambassadorship, has
been criticized from all sides due to his inexperience, history of bad judgement and
partisanship. The White House is now claiming
that he will be replaced by Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe after the interim appointment
is completed.
Criticism of Grenell for his clearly evident deficiencies misses the point, however, as he
is not in place to do anything constructive. He has already initiated a purge of federal
employees in the White House and national security apparatus considered to be insufficiently
loyal, an effort which has been supported by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many career officers have been sent back to their home agencies
while the new appointees are being drawn from the pool of neoconservatives that proliferated in
the George W. Bush administration. Admittedly some prominent neocons like Bill Kristol have
disqualified themselves for service with the new regime due to their vitriolic criticism of
Trump the candidate, but many others have managed to remain politically viable by keeping their
mouths shut during the 2016 campaign. To no one's surprise, many of the new employees being
brought in are being carefully vetted to make sure that they are passionate supporters of
Israel.
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump
does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is
nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president, even several layers down into the administration where
employees are frequently apolitical. As the Trump White House has not been renowned for its
adroit policies and forward thinking, the loss of expertise will be hardly noticeable, but
there will certainly be a reduction in challenges to group think while replacing officials in
the law enforcement and inspector general communities will mean that there will be no one in a
high enough position to impede or check presidential misbehavior. Instead, high officials will
be principally tasked with coming up with rationalizations to excuse what the White House
does.
... ... ...
Subsequent to the defenestration of Atkinson, Trump went after another inspector general
Glenn Fine, who was principal deputy IG at the Pentagon and had been charged with heading the
panel of inspectors that would have oversight responsibility to certify the proper
implementation of the $2.2 trillion dollar coronavirus relief package. As has been noted in the
media, there was particular concern regarding the lack of transparency regarding the $500
billion Exchange Stabilizing Fund (ESF) that had been set aside to make loans to corporations
and other large companies while the really urgently needed Small Business Loan allocation has
been failing to work at all except for Israeli
companies that have lined up for the loans. The risk that the ESF would become a slush fund
for companies favored by the White House was real, and several investigative reports observed
that Trump business interests might also directly benefit from the way it was drafted.
Four days after the firing of Atkinson, Fine also was let go to be replaced by the EPA
inspector general Sean O'Donnell, who is considered a Trump loyalist. On the previous day the
tweeter-in-chief came down on yet another IG, the woman responsible for Health and Human
Services Christi Grimm, who had issued a report stating that the her department had found "severe"
shortages of virus testing material at hospitals and "widespread" shortages of personal
protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. Trump quipped to reporters "Where did he
come from, the inspector general. What's his name?"
On the following day, Trump unleashed the tweet machine, asking "Why didn't the I.G., who
spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu
debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others
in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!"
A comment about foxes taking over the hen house would not be amiss and one might also note
that the swamp is far from drained. A concerted effort is clearly underway to purge anyone from
the upper echelons of the U.S. government who in any way contradicts what is coming out of the
White House. Inspectors general who are tasked with looking into malfeasance are receiving the
message that if they want to stay employed, they have to toe the presidential line, even as it
seemingly whimsically changes day by day. And then there is the irony of the heads at major
agencies like Environmental Protection now being committed to not enforcing existing
environmental regulations at all.
Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory
agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and
industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several
times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations
have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government
regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like
government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected] .
I yield to no one in my contempt for the fraud-failure of God Emperor Bush III but the author
has to be aware that talk of "impeachable" offenses is meaningless in American politics.
There has never been and never will be an impeachment effort that's not primarily
political rather than process-motivated. It's an up-or-down vote based on a partisan
head-counting and opportunism and public dissatisfaction. All the Article-this-and-that is
Magic Paper Talmudry.
Trump is a somewhat rogueish, somewhat rival Don and faction-head in the same criminal
(((Commission))) that's been running America for well over a century. He's Jon Gotti to their
Carlo Gambino, and his gauche nouveaux-elite style offends the sensibilities of the more
snobbish Davoise, but he's just angling for a seat at the table and a cut of the spoils, not
a return of power to the people.
Impeachment would serve no purpose but what we've seen so far with Russiagate, etc..
– a sideshow distraction from the real backroom, long-knife action going down, ala the
"settling scores" montage in Godfather III.
"To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency." -- Yes to this. This is OBVIOUS to all but the dullest rubes
or those who are in on it and trying to escape what they tried to do in attempting to over
throw the US Government. The rest?
Once you have this stated– that an actual Coup which was certainly plotted/sprung by
the last occupant of the Presidency along with Clinton, Brennan, Comey, and many other NWO
Globalists throughout the Government (FBI, CIA, DOJ ) and outside of it (the Globalist NWO
MEDIA) the rest is drivel -- they tried to take him out–JFK they used a bullet, here
not yet– so to say he shouldn't put in people he absolutely trusts at this time into
any position he can? Are you kidding or what? You can't be serious– I've actually had
someone try and kill me they were quite serious about it– my reaction after was not
anything like what I see you suggesting or mirrored in your "analysis". This is how the CIA
"counsels" in response to a murderous Coup -- an attempt to overthrow the duly elected
Government?
How do you overreact to a group of the most powerful people in the World getting together
to try to murder you? That's your argument basically– he's over reacting to that? He
shouldn't have "Loyalists". He needs to work with these other people -- the ones who want to
murder him -- keep some of those "non-Loyalists" on board who time after time have plotted
against him in every way possible during the last nearly 4 years?
You seem to be one strange dude from my life's vantage point any way, what a perspective
.Maybe you would actually deal with people of this magnitude trying to destroy you in the way
you state but no sane/fairly intelligent person would -- I can't get past you have that
sentence in there and then follow it with all the rest -- you seem to live in some alternate
reality where when someone tries to murder you the right reaction is to blow it off and work
with them– give them another few shots at you– say what? You learned this from
your years at the CIA– this is how they train/advise things like this should be dealt
with up at Langley? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part that they get another shot at
him?
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as
Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration
is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president
True enough. Trump has also injected into Washington his own nest of swamp creatures and
Wall St. bigwigs. However it is also true that Trump has been under unrelenting attack since
the day he announced his candidacy. This is not fair. With the possible exception of Nixon,
I've never seen a more ruthless campaign by political insiders to demean a public figure.
But to whom must Trump show ceaseless and attentive loyalty to?–no matter what?
I can't get too worked up about the firing of the prison guards; I rather enjoy the
charade.
The real problem is that: 'It's the system, stupid!' and no amount of tinkering or puting
the 'right' people in these positions will ever do anything more than just changing the
illusion that something is being done.
It reminds me a little of that late Soviet Union film "Burned by the Sun" about Stalin's
purges of the criminals that had ridden his coat tails to power. Try as the movie makers did,
I could not and would not feel an ounce of sorrow for those (these) scumbags who had wielded
immoral, arbitrary, and disproportionate power over their subjects.
The government has been against the people for my entire lifetime (I'm an old man now). One
of the only glimmers of light in that time, JFK was snuffed out. After all, who did he think
he was, trying to stop the elites from having their war in Vietnam?
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
The Vindman twins are a perfect example of the Deep State.
While I can understand your loathing of Trump's middle East policies, I do also, what he has
blatantley done vis a vis the Zionist Entity is very little different than what slick Obama
did under the table, outside of the Iran deal.
And to tell you the truth, as much as I loathe Israel the Iran deal was definitely flawed and
should have been more advantageous to America and the West. Iran should have seen the
advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with mad Zionists in their
neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips.
@Getaclue
The idea that Trump is fighting the Deep State is ludacris this is a charade if the Deep
State didn't want Trump to be President he wouldn't be. Trump is a Deep State minion. No
matter the existential threat to the US the 1% get richer and the 99% get poorer.
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
That supposes that Trump is not a Deep Stater as was Obama this is a poor supposition.
Iran should have seen the advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with
mad Zionists in their neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles,
sans nuclear tips.
Ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips are useless. Did anybody care when North Korea had
ballistic missiles before they had something worthwhile to put on the tip? Hell no.
Trump has had two open coup attempts in three years, and a constant barrage of leaks etc. His
purges are clearly at least three years too late.
Also, to an outsider, it's strange how some right-wing American journalists write in a way
which indicates that they have faith in the due process, checks-and-balances etc afforded by
the American system. I don't understand how any American right-winger could maintain their
faith in the U.S. political system, it seems corrupt approaching the point that it is
beyond-repair.
Trump's MAGA For The People efforts, must take steps to undo the damage done by the
prior criminal admistration.
Here is an detailed explanation of how Barack Hussein intentionally undermined the rule of
law:(1)
Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it.
The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application
still contains "sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause" to
approve the application. The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still
valid.
However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found.
On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA
redactions:
DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA
authority. That's the motive.
In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were
fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a
result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller's poisoned fruit.
If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there's a strong possibility some, perhaps
much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated and cases were pending. The
solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.
I am not sure why Giraldi is defending Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton's behaviour
& staff choices. All rational human beings see the damage that Hillary created at the
State Department.
=>
List of
Bookmarks ◄
► ◄ ► ▲
▼ Remove from Library
B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC
▲ ▼ Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel
Nearly 30,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus during the last two weeks, and by
some estimates this is a substantial under-count, while the death-toll continues to rapidly
mount. Meanwhile, measures to control the spread of this deadly infection have already cost 22
million Americans their jobs, an unprecedented economic collapse that has pushed our
unemployment rates to Great Depression levels. Our country is facing a crisis as grave as
almost any in our national history.
For many weeks President Trump and his political allies had regularly dismissed or minimized
this terrible health threat, and suddenly now faced with such a manifest disaster, they have
naturally begun seeking other culprits to blame.
The obvious choice is China, where the global epidemic first began in late 2019. Over the
last week or two our media has been increasingly filled with accusations that the dishonesty
and incompetence of the Chinese government played a major role in producing our own health
catastrophe.
Even more serious charges are also being raised, with senior government officials informing
the media that they suspect that the Covid-19 virus was developed in a Chinese laboratory in
Wuhan and then carelessly released upon a vulnerable world. Such "conspiracy theories" were
once confined to the extreme political fringe of the Internet, but they are now found in the
respectable pages of my morning New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest international implications, and
there are growing demands that China financially compensate our country for its trillions of
dollars in economic losses. A new global Cold War along both political and economic lines may
soon be at hand.
I have no personal expertise in biowarfare technology, nor access to the secret American
intelligence reports that seem to have been taken seriously by our most elite national
newspapers. But I do think that a careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over
the last couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative credibility of
those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the late 1990s, America seemed to reach the peak of its global power and prosperity,
basking in the aftermath of its historic victory in the long Cold War, while ordinary Americans
greatly benefited from the record-long economic expansion of that decade. A huge Tech Boom was
at its height, and Islamic terrorism seemed a vague and distant thing, almost entirely confined
to Hollywood movies. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of large scale war
seemed to have dissipated so political leaders boasted of the "peace dividend" that citizens
were starting to enjoy as our huge military forces, built up over nearly a half-century, were
downsized amid sweeping cuts in the bloated defense budget. America was finally returning to a
regular peacetime economy, with the benefits apparent to everyone.
At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues, so I only paid
slight attention to our one small military operation of that period, the 1999 NATO air war
against Serbia, intended to safeguard the Kosovo Albanians from ethnic cleansing and massacre,
a Clinton Administration project that I fully endorsed.
Although our limited bombing campaign seemed quite successful and soon forced the Serbs to
the bargaining table, the short war did include one very embarrassing mishap. The use of old
maps had led to a targeting error that caused one of our smart bombs to accidentally strike the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three members of its delegation and wounding dozens more.
The Chinese were outraged by this incident, and their propaganda organs began claiming that the
attack had been deliberate, a reckless accusation that obviously made no logical sense.
In those days I watched the PBS Newshour every night, and was I shocked to see their
U.S. Ambassador raise those absurd charges with host Jim Lehrer, whose disbelief matched my
own. But when I considered that the Chinese government was still stubbornly denying the reality
of its massacre of the protesting students in Tiananmen Square a decade earlier, I concluded
that unreasonable behavior by PRC officials was only to be expected. Indeed, there was even
some speculation that China was cynically milking the unfortunate accident for domestic
reasons, hoping to stoke the sort of jingoist anti-Americanism among the Chinese people that
would finally help bind the social wounds of that 1989 outrage.
Such at least were my thoughts on that matter more than two decades ago. But in the years
that followed, my understanding of the world and of many pivotal events of modern history
underwent the sweeping transformations that I have described in my American Pravda series . And some
of my 1990s assumptions were among them.
Consider, for example, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which every June 6th still evokes an
annual wave of harsh condemnations in the news and opinion pages of our leading national
newspapers. I had never originally doubted those facts, but a year or two ago I happened to
come across a short article by journalist Jay Matthews entitled "The Myth of
Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened, but was merely a
media artifact produced by confused Western reporters and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken
belief that had quickly become embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated by
so many ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true. Instead, as near
as could be determined, the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just
as the Chinese government had always maintained. Indeed, leading newspapers such as the New
York Times and the Washington Post had occasionally acknowledged these facts over
the years, but usually buried those scanty admissions so deep in their stories that few ever
noticed. Meanwhile, the bulk of the mainstream media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
ORDER
IT NOW
Matthews himself had been the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Washington Post ,
personally covering the protests at the time, and his article appeared in the Columbia
Journalism Review , our most prestigious venue for media criticism. This authoritative
analysis containing such explosive conclusions was first published in 1998, and I find it
difficult to believe that many reporters or editors covering China have remained ignorant of
this information, yet the impact has been absolutely nil. For over twenty years virtually every
mainstream media account I have read has continued to promote the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Hoax, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly.
Even more remarkable were the discoveries I made regarding our supposedly accidental bombing
of the Chinese Embassy in 1999. Not long after launching this website, I added former Asia
Times contributor Peter Lee as a columnist, incorporating his China Matters blogsite
archives that stretched back for a decade. He soon published a 7,000 word
article on the Belgrade Embassy bombing, representing a compilation of material already
contained in a
half-dozen previous pieces he'd written on that subject from 2007 onward. To my
considerable surprise, he provided a great deal of persuasive evidence that the American attack
on the Chinese embassy had indeed been deliberate, just as China had always claimed.
According to Lee, Beijing had allowed its embassy to be used as a site for secure radio
transmission facilities by the Serbian military, whose own communications network was a primary
target of NATO airstrikes. Meanwhile, Serbian air defenses had shot down an advanced American
F-117A fighter, whose top-secret stealth technology was a crucial U.S. military secret.
Portions of that enormously valuable wreckage were carefully gathered by the grateful Serbs,
who delivered it to the Chinese for temporary storage at their embassy prior to transport back
home. This vital technological acquisition later allowed China to deploy its own J20 stealth
fighter in early 2011, many years sooner than American military analysts had believed
possible.
Based upon this analysis, Lee argued that the Chinese embassy was attacked in order to
destroy the Serbian retransmission facilities located there, while punishing the Chinese for
allowing such use. There were also widespread rumors in China that another motive had been an
unsuccessful attempt to destroy the stealth debris stored within. Later Congressional testimony
revealed
that the among all the hundreds of NATO airstrikes, the attack on the Chinese embassy was the
only one directly ordered by the CIA, a highly-suspicious detail.
I was only slightly familiar with Lee's work, and under normal circumstances I would have
been very cautious in accepting his remarkable claims against the contrary position universally
held by all our own elite media outlets. But the sources he cited completely shifted that
balance.
Although the American media dominates the English-language world, many British publications
also possess a strong global reputation, and since they are often much less in thrall to our
own national security state, they have sometimes covered important stories that were ignored
here. And in this case, the Sunday Observer published a remarkable expose in October
1999, citing several NATO military and intelligence sources who fully confirmed the deliberate
nature of the American bombing of the Chinese embassy, with a US colonel even reportedly
boasting that their smartbomb had hit the exact room intended.
This important story was immediately summarized in the Guardian ,
a sister publication, and also covered by the rival Times of London and many of the
world's other most prestigious publications, but encountered an absolute wall of silence in our
own country. Such a bizarre divergence on a story of global strategic importance -- a
deliberate and deadly US attack against Chinese diplomatic territory -- drew the attention of
FAIR, a leading American media watchdog group, which published
an initial critique and
a subsequent follow-up . These two pieces totaled some 3,000 words, and effectively
summarized both the overwhelming evidence of the facts and also the heavy international
coverage, while reporting the weak excuses made by top American editors to explain their
continuing silence. Based upon these articles, I consider the matter settled.
Few Americans remember our 1999 attack upon the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and if not for
the annual waving of a bloody June 6th flag by our ignorant and disingenuous media, the
"Tiananmen Square Massacre" would also have long since faded from memory. Neither of these
events has much direct importance today, at least for our own citizens. But the broader media
implications of these examples do seem quite significant.
These incidents represented two of the most serious flashpoints between the Chinese and
American governments during the last thirty-odd years. In both cases the claims of the Chinese
government were entirely correct, although they were denied by our own top political leaders
and dismissed or ridiculed by virtually our entire mainstream media. Moreover, within a few
months or a year the true facts became known to many journalists, even being reported in fully
respectable venues. But that reality was still completely ignored and suppressed for decades,
so that today almost no American whose information comes from our regular media would even be
aware of it. Indeed, since many younger journalists draw their knowledge of the world from
these same elite media sources, I suspect that many of them have never learned what their
predecessors knew but dared not mention.
Most leading Chinese media outlets are owned or controlled by the Chinese government, and
they tend to broadly follow the government line. Leading American media outlets have a
corporate ownership structure and often boast of their fierce independence; but on many crucial
matters, I think the actual reality is not so very different from that in China.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and the
reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones. American news and entertainment
completely dominate the global media landscape and they face no significant domestic rival. So
China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and as the far weaker
party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be immediately exposed.
Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over global information may inspire considerable
hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and ridiculous falsehoods
in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for any mistakes.
These considerations should be kept in mind as we attempt to sift the accounts of our often
unreliable and dishonest media in hopes of extracting the true circumstances of the current
coronavirus epidemic. Unlike careful historical studies, we are working in real-time and our
analysis is greatly hindered by the ongoing fog of war, so that any conclusions are necessarily
very preliminary ones. But given the high stakes, such an attempt seems warranted.
When my morning newspapers first began mentioning the appearance of a mysterious new illness
in China during mid-January, I paid little attention, absorbed as I was in the aftermath of our
sudden assassination of Iran's top military leader and the dangerous possibility of a yet
another Middle Eastern war. But the reports persisted and grew, with deaths occurring and
evidence growing that the viral disease could be transmitted between humans. China's early
conventional efforts seemed unsuccessful in halting the spread of the disease.
Then on Jan. 23rd and after only 17 deaths, the Chinese government took the astonishing step
of locking down and quarantining the entire 11 million inhabitants of the city of Wuhan, a
story that drew worldwide attention. They soon extended this policy to the 60 million Chinese
of Hubei province, and not longer afterward shut down their entire national economy and
confined 700 million Chinese to their homes, a public health measure probably a thousand times
larger than anything previously undertaken in human history. So either the China's leadership
had suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new virus as an absolutely deadly national
threat, one that needed to be controlled at any possible cost.
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines that they generated,
the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had attempted to minimize
or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous as to defy rationality.
In any event, the record shows that on December 31st, the Chinese had already alerted the World
Health Organization to the strange new illness, and Chinese scientists published the entire
genome of the virus on Jan. 12th, allowing diagnostic tests to be produced worldwide.
Unlike other nations, China had received no advance warning of the nature or existence of
the deadly new disease, and therefore faced unique obstacles. But their government implemented
public health control measures unprecedented in the history of the world and managed to almost
completely eradicate the disease with merely the loss of a few thousand lives. Meanwhile, many
other Western countries such as the US, Italy, Spain, France, and Britain dawdled for months
and ignored the potential threat, and have now suffered well over 100,000 dead as a
consequence, with the toll still rapidly mounting. For any of these nations or their media
organs to criticize China for its ineffectiveness or slow response represents an absolute
inversion of reality.
Some governments took full advantage of the early warning and scientific information
provided by China. Although nearby East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and
Singapore had been at greatest risk and were among the first infected, their competent and
energetic responses allowed them to almost completely suppress any major outbreak, and they
have suffered minimal fatalities. But America and several European countries avoiding adopting
these same early measures such as widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have
paid a terrible price for their insouciance.
A few weeks ago British Prime Minister Boris Johnson boldly declared that his own disease
strategy for Britain was based upon rapidly achieving "herd immunity" -- essentially
encouraging the bulk of his citizens to become infected -- then quickly backed away after his
desperate advisors recognized that the result might entail a million or more British
deaths.
By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most East
Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while that of many Western countries has been
equally disastrous. Maintaining reasonable public health has been a basic function of
governments since the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total incompetence
of America and most of its European vassals has been breathtaking. If the Western media
attempts to pretend otherwise, it will permanently forfeit whatever remaining international
credibility it still possesses.
I do not think these particular facts are much disputed except among the most blinkered
partisans, and the Trump Administration probably recognizes the hopelessness of arguing
otherwise. This probably explains its recent shift towards a far more explosive and
controversial narrative, namely claiming that Covid-19 may have been the product of Chinese
research into deadly viruses at a Wuhan laboratory, which suggests that the blood of hundreds
of thousands or millions of victims around the world will be on Chinese hands. Dramatic
accusations backed by overwhelming international media power may deeply resonate across the
globe.
News reports appearing in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have been reasonably consistent. Senior Trump Administration
officials have pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading Chinese biolab, as the
possible source of the infection, with the deadly virus having been accidentally released,
subsequently spreading first throughout China and later worldwide. Trump himself has publicly
voiced similar suspicions, as did Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo in a
FoxNews
interview. Private lawsuits against China in the multi-trillion-dollar range have already
been filed by
rightwing activists and Republican senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham have raised similar
governmental demands.
I obviously have no personal access to the classified intelligence reports that have been
the basis of these charges by Trump, Pompeo, and other top administration officials. But in
reading these recent news accounts, I noticed something rather odd.
ORDER IT NOW
Back in January, few Americans were paying much attention to the early reports of an unusual
disease outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which was hardly a household name. Instead,
overwhelming political attention was focused on the battle over Trump's impeachment and the
aftermath of our dangerous military confrontation with Iran. But towards the end of that month,
I discovered that the fringes of the Internet were awash with claims that the disease was
caused by a Chinese bioweapon accidentally released from that same Wuhan laboratory, with
former Trump advisor Steve Bannon and ZeroHedge , a popular right-wing
conspiracy-website, playing leading roles in advancing the theory. Indeed, the stories became
so widespread in those ideological circles that Sen. Tom Cotton, a leading Republican Neocon,
began promoting them on Twitter and FoxNews, thereby provoking an
article in the NYT on those "fringe conspiracy theories."
I suspect that it may be more than purely coincidental that the biowarfare theories which
erupted in such concerted fashion on small political websites and Social Media accounts back in
January so closely match those now publicly advocated by top Trump Administration officials and
supposedly based upon our most secure intelligence sources. Perhaps a few intrepid
citizen-activists managed to replicate the findings of our multi-billion-dollar intelligence
apparatus, and did so in days while the latter required weeks or months. But a more likely
scenario is that the wave of January speculation was driven by private leaks and "guidance"
provided by exactly the same elements that today are very publicly leveling similar charges in
the elite media. Initially promoting controversial theories in less mainstream outlets has long
been a fairly standard intelligence practice.
Regardless of the origins of the idea, does it seem plausible that the coronavirus outbreak
might have originated as an accidental leak from that Chinese laboratory? I am not privy to the
security procedures of Chinese government facilities, but applying a little common sense may
shed some light on that question.
Although the coronavirus is only moderately lethal, apparently having a fatality rate of 1%
or less, it is extremely contagious, including during an extended pre-symptomatic period and
also among asymptomatic carriers. Thus, portions of the US and Europe are now suffering heavy
casualties, while the policies adopted to control the spread have devastated their national
economies. Although the virus is unlikely to kill more than a small sliver of our population,
we have seen to our dismay how a major outbreak can so easily wreck our entire economic
life.
During January, the journalists reporting on China's mushrooming health crisis regularly
emphasized that the mysterious new viral outbreak had occurred at the worst possible place and
time, appearing in the major transport hub of Wuhan just prior to the Lunar New Year holiday,
when hundreds of millions of Chinese would normally travel to their distant family homes for
the celebration, thereby potentially spreading the disease to all parts of the country and
producing a permanent, uncontrollable epidemic. The Chinese government avoided that grim fate
by the unprecedented decision to shut down its entire national economy and confine 700 million
Chinese to their own homes for many weeks. But the outcome seems to have been a very near
thing, and if Wuhan had remained open for just a few days longer, China might easily have
suffered long-term economic and social devastation.
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet the
outbreak seems to have begun during the precise period of time most likely to damage China, the
worst possible ten-day or perhaps thirty-day window. As I noted in
January, I saw no solid evidence that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, the
timing of the release seemed very unlikely to have been accidental.
If the virus was released intentionally, the context and motive for such a biowarfare attack
against China could not be more obvious. Although our disingenuous media continues to pretend
otherwise, the size of China's economy surpassed that of our own several years ago, and has
continued to grow much more rapidly. Chinese companies have also taken the lead in several
crucial technologies, with Huawei becoming the world's leading telecommunications equipment
manufacturer and dominating the important 5G market. China's sweeping Belt and Road Initiative
has threatened to reorient global trade around an interconnected Eurasian landmass, greatly
diminishing the leverage of America's own control over the seas. I have closely followed China
for over forty years, and the trend-lines have never been more apparent. Back in 2012, I
published an article bearing the provocative title "China's Rise, America's Fall?" and
since then I have seen no reason to reassess my verdict.
China's Rise, America's Fall Which
superpower is more threatened by its "extractive elites"? Ron Unz • The American Conservative,
April 17, 2012 • 7,000 Words
For three generations following the end of World War II, America had stood as the world's
supreme economic and technological power, while the collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years
ago left us as the sole remaining superpower, facing no conceivable military rival. A growing
sense that we were rapidly losing that unchallenged position had certainly inspired the
anti-China rhetoric of many senior figures in the Trump Administration, who launched a major
trade war soon after coming into office. The increasing misery and growing impoverishment of
large sections of the American population naturally left these voters searching for a
convenient scapegoat, and the prosperous, rising Chinese made a perfect target.
Despite America's growing economic conflict with China over the last couple of years, I had
never considered the possibility that matters might take a military turn. The Chinese had long
ago deployed advanced intermediate range missiles that many believed could easily sink our
carriers in the region, and they had also generally improved their conventional military
deterrent. Moreover, China was on quite good terms with Russia, which itself had been the
target of intense American hostility for several years; and Russia's new suite of revolutionary
hypersonic missiles had drastically reduced any American strategic advantage. Thus, a
conventional war against China seemed an absolutely hopeless undertaking, while China's
outstanding businessmen and engineers were steadily gaining ground against America's decaying
and heavily-financialized economic system.
Under these difficult circumstances, an American biowarfare attack against China might have
seemed the only remaining card to play in hopes of maintaining American supremacy. Plausible
deniability would minimize the risk of any direct Chinese retaliation, and if successful, the
terrible blow inflicted to China's economy would set it back for many years, perhaps even
destabilizing its social and political system. Using alternative media to immediately promote
theories that the coronavirus outbreak was the result of a leak from a Chinese biowarfare lab
was a natural means of preempting any later Chinese accusations along similar lines, thereby
allowing America to win the international propaganda war before China had even begun to
play.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage biological warfare in
hopes of maintaining American world power would certainly have been an extremely reckless act,
but extreme recklessness has become a regular aspect of American behavior since 2001,
especially under the Trump Administration. Just a year earlier we had kidnapped the
daughter of Huawei's founder and chairman, who also served as CFO and ranked as one of China's
most top executives, while at the beginning of January we suddenly assassinated Iran's top
military leader.
These were the thoughts that entered my mind during the last week of January once I
discovered the widely circulating theories suggesting that China's massive disease epidemic had
been the self-inflicted consequence of its own biowarfare research. I saw no solid evidence
that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, China was surely the innocent victim of
the attack, presumably carried out by elements of the American national security
establishment.
Soon afterward, someone brought to my attention a very long article by an American ex-pat
living in China who called himself "Metallicman" and held a wide range of eccentric and
implausible beliefs. I have long recognized that flawed individuals can often serve as the
vessels of important information otherwise unavailable, and this case constituted a perfect
example. His piece denounced the outbreak as a likely American biowarfare attack, and provided
a great wealth of factual material I had not previously considered. Since he authorized
republication elsewhere I did so, and
his 15,000 word analysis , although somewhat raw and unpolished, began attracting an
enormous amount of readership on our website, probably being one of the very first
English-language pieces to suggest that the mysterious new disease was an American bioweapon.
Many of his arguments appeared doubtful to me or have been obviated by later developments, but
several seemed quite telling.
He pointed out that during the previous two years, the Chinese economy had already suffered
serious blows from other mysterious new diseases, although these had targeted farm animals
rather than people. During 2018 a new Avian Flu virus had swept the country, eliminating large
portions of China's poultry industry, and during 2019 the Swine Flu viral epidemic had
devastated China's pig farms, destroying 40% of the nation's primary domestic source of meat,
with widespread claims that the latter disease was being spread by mysterious small drones. My
morning newspapers had hardly ignored these important business stories, noting
that the sudden collapse of much of China's domestic food production might prove a huge boon to
American farm exports at the height of our trade conflict, but I had never considered the
obvious implications. So for three years in a row, China had been severely impacted by strange
new viral diseases, though only the most recent had been deadly to humans. This evidence was
merely circumstantial, but the pattern seemed highly suspicious.
The writer also noted that shortly before the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, that city had
hosted 300 visiting American military officers, who came to participate in the 2019 Military World
Games , an absolutely remarkable coincidence of timing. As
I pointed out at the time, how would Americans react if 300 Chinese military officers had
paid an extended visit to Chicago, and soon afterward a mysterious and deadly epidemic had
suddenly broken out in that city? Once again, the evidence was merely circumstantial but
certainly raised dark suspicions.
Scientific investigation of the coronavirus had already pointed to its origins in a bat
virus, leading to widespread media speculation that bats sold as food in the Wuhan open markets
had been the original disease vector. Meanwhile, the orchestrated waves of anti-China
accusations had emphasized Chinese laboratory research on that same viral source. But we soon
published
a lengthy article by investigative journalist Whitney Webb providing copious evidence of
America's own enormous biowarfare research efforts, which had similarly focused for years on
bat viruses. Webb was then associated with MintPress News , but that publication had
strangely declined to publish her important piece, perhaps skittish about the grave suspicions
it directed towards the US government on so momentous an issue. So without the benefit of our
platform, her major contribution to the public debate might have attracted relatively little
readership.
Around the same time, I noted another
extremely strange coincidence that failed to attract any interest from our somnolent national
media. Although his name had meant nothing to me, in late January my morning newspapers carried
major stories on the
sudden arrest of Prof. Charles Lieber, one of Harvard University's top scientists and Chairman
of its Chemistry Department, sometimes characterized as a potential future Nobel Laureate.
The circumstances of that case seemed utterly bizarre to me. Like numerous other prominent
American academics, Lieber had had decades of close research ties with China, holding joint
appointments and receiving substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of
financial reporting violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant applications
-- the most obscure sort of offense -- and on the basis of those accusations, he was seized by
the FBI in an early-morning raid on his suburban Lexington home and dragged off in shackles,
potentially facing years of federal imprisonment.
Such government action against an academic seemed almost without precedent. During the
height of the Cold War, numerous American scientists and technicians were rightfully accused of
having stolen our nuclear weapons secrets for delivery to Stalin, yet I had never heard of any
of them treated in so harsh a manner, let alone a scholar of Prof. Lieber's stature, who was
merely charged with technical disclosure violations. Indeed, this incident recalled accounts of
NKVD raids during the Soviet purges of the 1930s.
ORDER IT NOW
Although Lieber was described as a chemistry professor, a few seconds of Googling revealed
that some of his most important work had been in virology, including technology for the
detection of viruses. So a massive and deadly new viral epidemic had broken out in China and
almost simultaneously, a top American scholar with close Chinese ties and expertise in viruses
was suddenly arrested by the federal government, yet no one in the media expressed any
curiosity at a possible connection between these two events.
I think we can safely assume that Lieber's arrest by the FBI had been prompted by the
concurrent coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is mere speculation. Those now accusing
China of having created the coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with that deadly research.
But I think a far more likely possibility is that Lieber began to wonder whether the epidemic
in China might not be the result of an American biowarfare attack, and was perhaps a little too
free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of our national security
establishment. Inflicting such extremely harsh treatment upon a top Harvard scientist would
greatly intimidate all of his lesser colleagues elsewhere, who would surely now think twice
before broaching certain controversial theories to any journalist.
By the end of January, our webzine had published a dozen articles and posts on the
coronavirus outbreak, then added many more by the middle of February. These pieces totaled tens
of thousands of words and attracted a half million words of comments, probably representing the
primary English-language source for a particular perspective on the deadly epidemic, with this
material eventually drawing many hundreds of thousands of pageviews. A few weeks later, the
Chinese government began gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have been
brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that city, and was
fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for spreading anti-American propaganda. But I
strongly suspect that the Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication.
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China's own borders, another development
occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly
where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February
Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its
political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire
Iranian parliament soon infected and at least
a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were
quite
senior . Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred
Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political
elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they
died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else
in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander
on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became
infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence.
Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
Biological warfare is a highly technical subject, and those possessing such expertise are
unlikely to candidly report their classified research activities in the pages of our major
newspapers, perhaps even less so after Prof. Lieber was dragged off to prison in chains. My own
knowledge is nil. But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments
on the coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling
himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American
biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and after a
little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood his background was
exactly as he had described. I made arrangements to republish his comments in the form of
a 3,400 word
article , which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and 80,000 words of further
comments.
Although the writer emphasized the lack of any hard evidence, he said that his experience
led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare
attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover of
the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our
intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere. One important point he made was that
high lethality was often counter-productive in a bioweapon since debilitating or hospitalizing
large numbers of individuals may impose far greater economic costs on a country than a
biological agent which simply inflicts an equal number of deaths. In his words "a high
communicability, low lethality disease is perfect for ruining an economy," suggesting that the
apparent characteristics of the coronavirus were close to optimal in this regard. Those so
interested should read his analysis and judge for themselves his possible credibility and
persuasiveness.
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that reports of
the strange new epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and orchestrated
campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media platforms to identify the
cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country. Meanwhile, the far more
plausible hypothesis that China was the victim rather than the perpetrator had received
virtually no organized support anywhere, and only began to take shape as I gradually located
and republished relevant material, usually drawn from very obscure quarters and often
anonymously authored. So it seemed that only the side hostile to China was waging an active
information war. The outbreak of the disease and the nearly simultaneous launch of such a major
propaganda campaign may not necessarily prove that an actual biowarfare attack had occurred,
but I do think it tends to support such a theory.
When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack, certain natural objections
come to mind. The major drawback to biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that
the self-replicating agents employed will not respect national borders, thus raising the
serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the land of its origin and inflict
substantial casualties. For this reason, it seems very doubtful that any rational and
half-competent American leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China.
But as we see absolutely demonstrated in our daily news headlines, America's current
government is grotesquely and manifestly incompetent , more incompetent than one could
almost possibly imagine, with tens of thousands of Americans having now already paid with their
lives for such extreme incompetence. Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere to be
found among the Deep State Neocons that President Donald Trump has appointed to so many crucial
positions throughout our national security apparatus.
Moreover, the extremely lackadaisical notion that a massive coronavirus outbreak in China
would never spread back to America might have seemed plausible to individuals who carelessly
assumed that past historical analogies would continue to apply. As
I wrote a few weeks ago:
Reasonable people have suggested that if the coronavirus was a bioweapon deployed by
elements of the American national security apparatus against China (and Iran), it's difficult
to imagine why the they didn't assume it would naturally leak back in the US and start a huge
pandemic here, as is currently happening.
The most obvious answer is that they were stupid and incompetent, but here's another point
to consider
In late 2002 there was the outbreak of SARS in China, a related virus but that was far
more deadly and somewhat different in other characteristics. The virus killed hundreds of
Chinese and spread into a few other countries before it was controlled and stamped out. The
impact on the US and Europe was negligible, with just a small scattering of cases and only a
death or two.
So if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack against China,
isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
coronavirus? Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed
so implausible at the time?
As some must have surely noticed, I have deliberately avoided investigating any of the
scientific details of the coronavirus. In principle, an objective and accurate analysis of the
characteristics and structure of the virus might help suggest whether it was entirely natural
or rather the product of a research laboratory, and in the latter case, perhaps whether the
likely source was China, America, or some third country.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event and those questions obviously have
enormous political ramifications, so the entire subject is shrouded by a thick fog of complex
propaganda, with numerous conflicting claims being advanced by interested parties. I have no
background in microbiology let alone biological warfare, so I would be hopelessly adrift in
evaluating such conflicting scientific and technical claims. I suspect that this is equally
true of the overwhelming majority of other observers as well, although committed partisans are
loathe to admit that fact, and will eagerly seize upon any scientific argument that supports
their preferred position while rejecting those that contradict it.
Therefore, by necessity, my own focus is on evidence that can at least be understood by
every layman, if not necessarily always accepted. And I believe that the simple juxtaposition
of several recent disclosures in the mainstream media leads to a rather telling conclusion.
For obvious reasons, the Trump Administration has become very eager to emphasize the early
missteps and delays in the Chinese reaction to the viral outbreak in Wuhan, and has presumably
encouraged our media outlets to direct their focus in that direction.
As an example of this, the Associated Press Investigative Unit recently published a rather
detailed analysis of those early events purportedly based upon confidential Chinese documents.
Provocatively entitled "China Didn't Warn Public of Likely
Pandemic for 6 Key Days" , the piece was widely distributed, running
in abridged form in the NYT and elsewhere. According to this reconstruction, the
Chinese government first became aware of the seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan.
14th, but delayed taking any major action until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the
number of infections greatly multiplied.
Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and thorough
4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has published a helpful timeline of
those early events as well. Although there may be some differences of emphasis or minor
disagreements, all these American media sources agree that Chinese officials first became aware
of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January, with the first known death
occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally implemented major new public health measures later that
same month. No one has apparently disputed these basic facts.
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious,
sources within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones
asleep at the switch. Earlier this month,
an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back
as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency
had produced a report revealing than an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the
Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our
government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the
story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report,
while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a
few days later,
Israeli television revealed that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a
report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to
independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC story and its several
government sources.
ORDER IT NOW
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the
deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government
itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I
think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of
future fires.
Back in February, before a single American had died from the disease,
I wrote my own overview of the possible course of events, and I would still stand by it
today:
Consider a particularly ironic outcome of this situation, not particularly likely but
certainly possible
Everyone knows that America's ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and also extremely
incompetent.
So perhaps the coronavirus outbreak was indeed a deliberate biowarfare attack against
China, hitting that nation just before Lunar New Year, the worst possible time to produce a
permanent nationwide pandemic. However, the PRC responded with remarkable speed and
efficiency, implementing by far the largest quarantine in human history, and the deadly
disease now seems to be in decline there.
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US, and despite all the advance
warning, our totally incompetent government mismanages the situation, producing a huge
national health disaster, and the collapse of our economy and decrepit political system.
As I said, not particularly likely, but certainly a very fitting end to the American
Empire
But their government implemented public health control measures unprecedented in the
history of the world and managed to almost completely eradicate the disease with merely the
loss of a few thousand lives
And if you can't trust China's numbers, who can you trust?
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet
the outbreak seems to have begun during precise period of time most likely to damage
China
It almost sounds like putting a virus lab in the middle of twelve million people was a bad
idea.
Lol. I can't believe you're doubling down on this jackassery.
Mr Unz, also have you read David Cole's theory on this (at TakiMag)? I know you and him got
in blog beef a couple years ago over your Pravda article on Holocaust, but his theory also
criticized the Wuhan "lab leak" and believes the wet markets originated the virus while the
state lab was trying to cover up the "natural market" zoonotic mess. Would be fun to (again)
watch you 2 debate notes.
If I had told you a year ago that Iran would have its top General assassinated and then its
country decimated by a viral infection, that China would be a world pariah with calls for
trillion in reparations, that Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela would have a bounty on his head for
lol being involved in the cocaine trade, and that Kim Jong Un would be dead who do you think
would be the architect of this future?
Chinese elites or American ones?
American neocons are literally getting everything they want.
You can look at all of the damage to the American economy relative to China, but who is
really being hurt in America? Regular Americans are being hurt. But the elites are getting
bailed out and will buy US assets for pennies on the dollar.
"When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack, certain natural objections
come to mind. The major drawback to biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that
the self-replicating agents employed are not prone to respect national borders, raising the
serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the land of its origin and inflict
substantial casualties. For this reason, it seems quite doubtful that any rational and
half-competent American leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China."
Unless, of course, those in power knew exactly what that 'blowback' would entail, as they
had modeled it over and over, for years, maybe decades.
They would be in a position to crash the stock market (and get out at the very top),
assure a new alliance between the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury (allowing the elites to
use the American taxpayers to fund their losses indefinitely), destroy the middle and lower
classes through government ordered 'lockdowns' (driving down wages yet again, and making
Americans frightened, unemployed and angry, and thereby easily mislead like in the 9/11
aftermath), create a world political environment allowing medical tyranny to make universal
yearly vaccines and mandatory microchipping of everyone acceptable to the masses (ala Bill
Gates/Tony Fauci/WHO and their Pig Pharma vaccine brigade), drop the price of oil
indefinitely to fatally weaken Iran, hurt Russia and allow our predator capitalist banks to
scoop up the failing US shale oil industry for pennies (which they are fully preparing to
do), and ultimately allow the elites to perfectly time the inevitable deflation of the
world's derivatives bubble, further sending the commoners into complete panic mode (and
making their primal fears easily directed against the Western world's now common enemy, the
Red Yellow Hordes.)
Doesn't sound very 'incompetent' to me. Sounds like utterly evil, but undeniably
brilliant, military-economic planning. And it is looking like they may pull this one off,
just like 9/11, and get the scared and terminally gullible Western plebes on board for their
own further destruction economically, politically, and very possibly physically.
End Result: the PTB get to blame China for everything; make China foot the bill (or else);
and when China balks, prepare the West's gullible, easily controlled citizens for military
conflict if the Chinese don't roll over and cough up to the West's satisfaction.
Incompetence?
Sure looks to me like a neoliberal zionist-neocon elitist wet dream come true ..
@Otto von Komsmark If you believe that the virus originated in a wet market, what's your
theory on why China immediately allowed wet markets to open back up (albeit with guards
posted to prevent pics). Are they just exceptionally slow learners or do they realize that
the wet market theory was always bogus?
" the Chinese government began gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have
been brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that city, and was
fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for spreading anti-American propaganda. But I
strongly suspect that the Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication" not at all
improbable since said publication has a very deep current of slavish devotion to the Chinese
state; such that one might even strongly suspect that the publication is getting its ideas
from the Chinese totalitarians as much as the other way round. But since 'false flag'
theories are another popular concept in such discussions, it might be conceivable that the
human rights regime in Beijing deliberately released the mystery bug in China & Iran
first, in order to throw suspicion on the U.S. The Chinese & Iranian tallies so far have
been surprisingly low despite starting there earlier, so if they're not suppressing the
facts, maybe they knew what to expect & were prepared. And the brunt of it would then be
borne by their Western 'adversaries'. Not to mention, that the Chinese despots could
reinforce their iron grip on Chinese society with their customary contempt for civil
liberties. China's "current government is grotesquely and manifestly" incompatible with
personal freedom, more incompatible than "one could almost possibly imagine", with tens of
millions of Uighurs, Tibetans, dissidents, workers having now already paid with their lives
& freedom for such extreme incompatibility.
"Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere to be found among the Deep State Neocons
that President Donald Trump has appointed to so many crucial positions throughout our
national security apparatus" and certainly rationality, competence, humanity are never to be
found among Neo-cons anywhere. The President has been wise to largely ignore them. If Trump
had been President in '99, it's very likely that the absolutely unnecessary, devastating war
on Serbia by Hillary & Bill – based on deliberate lies – would never have
gotten off the ground.
President Trump now faces the daunting dilemma of how to protect the society while at the
same time not displaying the same disdain for political & civic freedom that is the
hallmark of the CCP. An end to America Empire would be a good thing – the President
knows that, as he again reiterated the trillions misspent in the M.E. at his daily press
conference today – but this isn't the way to do it. Only a Chinese communist or fellow
traveler could believe that.
"At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues, so I only paid
slight attention to our one small military operation of those years, the 1999 NATO air war
against Serbia, intended to safeguard the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing and massacre,
a Clinton Administration project that I fully endorsed." And why should one believe our
government and media about "safeguard(ing) the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing and
massacre" any more than one should believe their other lies?
For most of this post, I can't say one way or the other. I personally think this was either
the result of the so-called "wet-markets" in China – long known to be the primary
source of the annual flu epidemics (why the heck haven't they been shut down??) or a
criminally NEGLIGENT release from a research lab.
But.
"China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and so as the
far weaker party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be
immediately exposed. Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over information may lead to
considerable hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and
ridiculous falsehoods in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for
any mistakes."
Nearly 30,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus during the last two weeks, and by
some estimates this is a substantial under-count
Quoted numbers of deaths are as unreliable as the number of infections.
Cause of death as stated in a death certificate is often, and even usually, wrong, and
during an epidemic caused by a virus that induces respiratory difficulty it is likely that
virtually all deaths due to respiratory dysfunction will be attributed to the virus without
confirmatory evidence.
Furthermore, virtually all deaths of persons testing positive for covid19 will be
attributed to the virus even though the deceased may have had multiple other diseases, any
one of which could have been the cause of death.
But as this epidemic is shaping up, it is likely that the estimated death toll will be
comparable to that of the seasonal flu in a bad year. Herd immunity is likely now widespread,
so the thing should fizzle out soon, with or without continued population incarceration.
Boris Johnson boldly declared that his own coronavirus plan for Britain was based upon
rapidly achieving "herd immunity" -- essentially encouraging the bulk of his citizens to
become infected -- then quickly backed away after his desperate advisors recognized that
the result might entail a million or more British deaths.
LOL. Neil Ferguson an Imperial College epidemiologist with an awesomely bad track record
in predicting the course of epidemics, made some such prediction which he soon modified to a
very much smaller number – 20,000 I believe, a number not yet reached.
In fact, the original plan was abandoned for fear that unrestricted spread of the virus
would result in a concentration of infections, which at the peak, would overload hospitals by
that minority of cases requiring hospital treatment.
Not just NWO ChiCom China of course– they're just the tool, the NWO
"Elites"/Globalists, who shipped USA Manufacturing to China and destroyed the Middle Class in
the USA etc., have made China the "Model" for us all -- "Social Credit Scores" for the Peons,
an authoritarian "Party" of "Elites" with all power, Peons having to get a "green" signal on
their cell phones every time they go outside . -- NWO Globalist "Elites" actually running the
CVirus show/"Production"/911 "Event" Part 2 -- "Invisible Terrorists Forever"–
meanwhile most "journalists" are cheering the loss of freedoms and anyone who points out what
is going on wants to "kill Grandma" is "Selfish" it's all about on a Junior High School level
but after getting away with 911 Demolition anyone not a rube, grifter/or in on it knew they'd
be back to finish it off– and so they are here with the Plandemic:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/elite-covid-19-coup-against-terrified-humanity-resisting-powerfully/5709479
Side note: Interesting the Mainslime Media is not all over China's Racism towards Blacks
as evidenced in their Ad here against "Diversity" and "Race Mixing"– they aren't
kidding! Seems ChiComs can do what YT could never .: https://twitter.com/sadir_Palwan/status/1250570077163925509
The Nanjing protests were groundbreaking dissidence for China and went from solely
expressing concern about alleged [sic] improprieties by African men to increasingly calling
for democracy or human rights. They were paralleled by burgeoning demonstrations in other
cities during the period between the Nanjing and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989,
with some elements of the original protests that started in Nanjing still evident in
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, such as banners proclaiming "Stop Taking Advantage of
Chinese Women" even though the vast majority of African students had left the country by
that point.
And if you can't trust China's numbers, who can you trust?
It's very true that China's numbers is perhaps the best numbers that you could trust.
Moritz Kraemer, a scholar at Oxford University who is leading a team of researchers in
mapping the global spread of the coronavirus, says China's data "provided incredible detail,"
including a patient's age, sex, travel history and history of chronic disease, as well as
where the case was reported, and the dates of the onset of symptoms, hospitalization and
confirmation of infection.
The United States, he said, "has been slow in collecting data in a systematic way.". The
article not only showing the chaotic situation in different states, but highlights the
limited information shared with scientific community. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/coronavirus-data-privacy.html
The WHO too only had high praises for China's transparency and efficiency.
The only parties challenging these are Trump, Mike Pompeo, and the US Intelligence. Make a
pick who to trust.
But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments on the
coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling
himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American
biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and after a
little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood that his
background was exactly as he had described. I made arrangements to republish his comments
in the form of a 3,400 word article, which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and
80,000 words of further comments.
Although the writer said that he had absolutely no proof, he said that his experience
led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare
attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover
of the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our
intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere.
Oh God, that crap again. Some geezer who may or may not have any relevant expertise, had a
suspicion, but absolutely no proof, of a goofy theory that to launch a biowarfare attack on
China the US Government had the brilliant idea of having the agent released by a contingent
of 300 American soldiers participating in the international military games held in Wuhan,
China.
Is that a stupid idea, or what?
And anyhow, there is evidence just published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy
of Sciences that the viral epidemic in China did not begin in Wuhan and, furthermore, it
began earlier than originally believed, i.e., before the Military Games.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event
Not really. Just a new disease out of China, one of many from China since the year dot,
which has a lethality comparable to the seasonal flu. The event is cataclysmic only because
of the economic consequences of the public policy response in most Western states, though not
Sweden.
@Ozymandias Hey Ozy, The Australians claimed to have suffered only 120 wu-wu virus deaths
total. The South Koreans claim only 250 wu-wu deaths total. In Ozy world, are they liars too
along with the Chinese? Or is it possible they have a functional public health system and
moderately competent politicians who decided to fix the wu-wu virus problem .instead of
playing golf and bullshitting the public for six weeks. The wu-wu virus death total in the
essential exceptional nation is now 42,000 and rising. No other country is even close. It's
like Trumpie heard the experts advise "fatten the curve" instead of "flatten the curve".
So, you "fully endorsed" Clinton Administration 1999 NATO air war against Serbia, and you
don't even know that it wasn't "intended to safeguard the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic
cleansing and massacre",
because war in Bosnia was already done long before 1999 (war finished in 1995).
a year or two ago I happened to come across a short article by journalist Jay Matthews
entitled "The Myth of Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened, but was merely a
media artifact produced by confused Western reporters and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken
belief that had quickly become embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated
by so many ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true.
the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just as the Chinese
government had always maintained.
the bulk of the mainstream media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
This is like saying the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was a hoax because most of the
deaths occurred overnight, past midnight, no longer St. Bartholomew's Day, ergo "the St.
Bartholomew's Day Massacre" was a Hoax. Throwing the baby out with a technicality.
Checking the Jay Matthews story, I see this:
Hundreds of people, most of them workers and passersby, did die that night, but in a
different place and under different circumstances.
The Chinese government estimates more than 300 fatalities. Western estimates are
somewhat higher. Many victims were shot by soldiers on stretches of Changan Jie, the Avenue
of Eternal Peace, about a mile west of the square, and in scattered confrontations in other
parts of the city
Regarding SARS inability to spread further, that's why the glycoprotein 120 was added:
it's an external protein they borrowed from HIV and CRISPR'd onto the Covid-19.
Interesting enough by including this mechanism in the novel virus they have perhaps laid
the ground for future AIDS type syndromes in those who get the virus or some variant of it.
That's another topic deserving it's own crowd funded public research.
Much of the suddenly far reaching effects of this novel virus derive from the advent of
CRISP technology and the ability to fuse different parts of virus into one. Of course,
zoonotic transmission still needs to occur hence all the special grants to Wuhan Institute
and North Carolina in doing this type of research, going out and collecting the special virus
out of bat shit 600 miles away from Wuhan in caves in remote China, and feeding it to pigs
and chimps who die and the process is repeated until a stable virus is developed.
Interesting enough Dr Fauci is an expert on HIV and specifically glycoprotein 120. He's
worked to run private trial tests while working in the government probably for his Fort
Detrick buddies.
Everyone reading this article and still intrigued for more information out to check out
two key players that researching the origins of the virus and it's likely bioengineered
origins:
This virus has links to Fauci, research at Fort Detrick, as well as research carried out
in North Carolina and Wuhan that was paid for by grants from Fauci while running major
government groups.
It appears part of this operation utilized the NATO transport network for transporting
deadly diseases and nuclear material. In fact, one such courier was in Wuhan as an American
cyclist for the military games
But I digress.
The blowback part Ron mentions being the consequence of stupidity from the government are
possible but I think unlikely. If you follow parallel developments in geopolitics and,
specifically, finance (not withstanding all of Bill Gates work with companies to have a
vaccine ready to go ), you'll see perhaps the makings of a grand conspiracy to (1) cement the
strength of the dollar and (2) sequester Chinese economic growth and power all at once.
For this to work most of the government would not know what's going on and that probably
includes Trump. Plus, what better way to hide culpability than to inflict a wound on
yourself?
For links to articles discussing this topic see below:
Everyone is enjoying the screaming and paranoia but China (East Asia) has been producing new
and "wonderful" diseases for several thousand years. They used to have bacterial variations
but in the last few centuries have moved to designer viruses.
South China has wall-to-wall rice paddies where wild and migratory animals feed, drink and
sh*t with farm animals under the care of a billion or so humans with primitive concepts of
sanitation and minimal, to no, modern healthcare, so "rare" or "unlikely" bug mutations and
species "jumps" are just a matter of time. The wild birds of China Summer in Siberia and
Alaska with all the other birds of the world. The "Real" Globalism ..
The appearance of Corona variants in Kazhakstan, Iran, the Gulf States, and Israeli
ckickens, or the appearance of "pig flu" in Mexico, or the Spanish Flu (1918?) in Kansas, all
under major bird migratory routes, should not be too much of a surprise. Even if a US, UN or
Chinese agency finds it. Be aware that this used to happen before Boeing and AirBus joined
the game.
Be careful cleaning the poop off your windshield and/or yard furniture.
Damn flying dinosaurs are dangerous. If you find some poop with a "made in China" label,
call the authorities. They will love the warning about the poison from a flying Chinese
Communist dragon.
The coronavirus is serial! Thooper serial! Look at all these in depth political analyses
and ignore the facts in plain view!
Blowback is a particularly telling choice of word, since I remember Noam Chomsky using the
same term. He used it to add weight to the official 9/11 story by claiming the events were a
direct result of US foreign policy, which re-enforced the Muslim terrorist angle and stopped
people from looking for the real culprits.
Another great installment in the American Pravda series. I use to work in the federal
government and always wondered why employees of the Nationals Archives* needed a top secret
U.S. government clearance and why employees of Presidential libraries needed to have the same
security clearance as a nuclear submarine commander (top secret- sensitive compartmented
information). What secrets could there possibly be from 60 years ago?? Then it dawned on me
that it could never be known by the general public how their country behaves toward other
countries and why and how we go to war. We would lose all faith in our government.
I have only one small correction:
[Charles Lieber] was seized by the FBI in an early-morning raid on his Cambridge home
and dragged off in shackles, potentially facing decades of federal imprisonment.
He lives in a wooded suburban neighborhood in Lexington, MA, not in the city of
Cambridge.
On the one hand a bio-warfare attack on China is something I can absolutely see the American
elites post 9/11 do. Their track-record speaks for itself.
There have also been significant shifts in Europe's alignment, on which US global
dominance critically depends: the continuation of Northstream 2 against the explicit wishes
of the Americans, 5 G expansion and Huawei cooperation in the European market, plans of
replacing NATO with a European army (talks on the fringe of the right about a defense pact
with Russia), the Belt and Road trillion dollar project which has its better European name as
"The New Silk Road". Eurasian integration goes directly against the global dominance strategy
of the US Empire. Europe is also now caught between an intense and visible propaganda warfare
of the USA and China/Russia.
And there were also the proxy-war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis: the latter at minimum
a fallout of US-Israeli wars in the Middle East and the Zionist assault against Libya; yet
not unlikely itself a direct assault against Europe. And not only Willy Wimmer, closest
adviser to our old chancellor Helmut Kohl, strongly suspected as much already back in 2015.
Wimmer had been part of several war games in Langley in his time in the German government,
quite clearly reasoning that in modern warfare you cannot initiate a conflict without knowing
where the refugees will go – it is part of the planning process.
On the other hand we must recognize the long term and massive investments of for example
Blackrock and Vanguard into China; the ambitions to liberalize Chinese society and further
open their economy for foreign, especially US investments; the attempts of Zionism to set up
shop in China; the key role of Israel in the Belt and Road project and the admiration the
Chinese have for Jews and their material success.
If it was a bio-warfare attack and if the ambition is to lock the USA and China in
a new Cold War with potential proxy wars, then Americas financial and Jewish elite, which so
very much dominate the deep state neocons, must be of the opinion that their profits will not
be affected by it.
And if it was the long-term plan of Zionism and much of Americas financial, largely
Jewish, elite to shift their power-base from the USA which they have effectively subjugated
to the less secured China, then a bio-warfare attack would hardly be a smart move to keep the
transition as quiet as possible.
@if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack against China, isn't
it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never significantly
leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the coronavirus?
Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed so implausible
at the time?
Albert Einstein: "Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting
Different Results".
Moreover, in establishing whether a crime was committed, the criminal investigation has to
establish first that there was a motive, the means and the opportunity to commit the crime.
All these criteria are satisfied in this case pointing to a biological attack against China
and its allies.
The possibility of biowarfare (and its desirability) was unequivocally formulated in
September 2000 when the 'Project for the New American Century' released "Rebuilding America's
Defenses", a report that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend
its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."
The report also states, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful
tool".
The first bioweapons research program was initiated in America by Sir Frederick Banting with
corporate sponsorship in 1940.
From Wikipedia (no secrets): In 1942 "U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson requested that
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) undertake consideration of U.S. biological warfare. In
response the NAS formed a committee, the War Bureau of Consultants (WBC), which issued a
report on the subject in February 1942.The report, among other items, recommended the
research and development of an offensive biological weapons program.
The British, and the research undertaken by the WBC, pressured the U.S. to begin biological
weapons research and development and in November 1942 U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt
officially approved an American biological weapons program. In response to the information
provided by the WBC, Roosevelt ordered Stimson to form the War Research Service (WRS).
Established within the Federal Security Agency, the WRS' stated purpose was to promote
"public security and health", but, in reality, the WRS was tasked with coordinating and
supervising the U.S. biological warfare program. In the spring of 1943 the U.S. Army
Biological Warfare Laboratories were established at Fort (then Camp) Detrick in
Maryland".
The Chinese read their James Bond: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times
is enemy action".
It doesn't make sense to me that the US would fly drones over chinese pig farms half way
around the world in order to infect half the pigs in China with African swine flu.
Smithfield is the largest producer of pork in the US. Smithfield is owned by a Chinese firm.
So China is making up for their lack of domestic pork by buying their own US pork. How would
this risky venture benefit the US? Yet this was the accusation labelled against the US by
many Chinese. With zero proof.
The timing of this pandemic is very beneficial to the deep state, and the MSM is hyping
the heck out of it; and the CDC et al are pumping up the numbers to make it seems as bad as
possible. It's like they WANT a global pandemic. To crash the market and make DJT look bad?
That is what the Biden for drooling pres campaign videos are hyping already.
If there is a germ war going on, it is China doing it to its communist shit-hole self. I
don't know why anybody trades with them. The Chinese state literally kills Uyghurs and Falun
Gong and steals their organs, but they have favored nation trading status? wtf
It is fairly congruent with my own writeup from a few weeks back. Although I did not go so
far as to definitively endorse any particular theory. The idea of this all being an American
strike on China is the interesting hypothesis to me and fits my understanding of how
America's geopolitical toolbox might work best. There is also a case to be made that the
blowback stateside is a feature not a bug.
The United States could come out ahead in terms of the great game with China. But only if
it can play its cards correctly.
Ultimately, what enough people think about this whole situation is what will define
outcomes and right now things are on track for the bulk of the Chinese population to think
that this is an American attack and for a significant number of Americans to believe that
this is either accidental or deliberate Chinese action.
I think those popular attitudes are very valuable to their respective governments.
Devil's advocacy is always an important intellectual activity, but you seemed to have pretty
much pointed out the hole in your grand theory yourself.
If we're going to imagine the US gov't apparatus is competent enough to start the virus in
China, one would have to presume (if their collective IQ's approach anywhere near 90) that
they would also set up for the contingency that it might come to the US too.
Imagining otherwise is akin to thinking the US top brass have the intelligence of some of
those bonehead crooks who sometimes make the news for their stupid (and funny) attempts at
crime. The US top brass might be dumb, but c'mon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn5CvDgaZSc
I think we can safely assume that Lieber's arrest by the FBI had been prompted by the
coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is mere speculation. Those now accusing China of
having created the coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with that deadly
research. But I think a far more likely possibility is that Lieber began to wonder
whether the epidemic in China might not be the result of an American biowarfare attack, and
was perhaps a little too free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of
our national security establishment.
Or alternatively, who would a laboratory whistleblower turn to other than a respected
Harvard professor, who would understand the technical aspects, and who he may actually
already have known and trusted?
Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then
just a few weeks later large portions of the Iran's ruling elites became infected by a
mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any
rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
An irresistible add-on like Larry Silverstein's extra insurance cover and payout.
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that
reports of the strange new epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and
orchestrated campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media to identify
the cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country.
Again similar to 9/11 with an instant media explanation trumpeted around the world (no
investigation necessary).
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the
deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese
government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of
precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the
earliest knowledge of future fires.
Agreed – they really messed it up – and it would be a world class irony if it
was their own virus that wrecks the US economy.
The Chinese embassy in Serbia is an interesting side story. However, as much as I disagreed
with why we were there, another Clinton abuse of office, China was apparently participating
as a combatant providing crucial signals support to the Serbian military. Topped off by
handling sensitive F117 residuals that we wanted destroyed. Or perhaps only some of US, given
various conflicts of interests in both Clinton globalism and sharing/planned obsolescence by
arms makers .
CV19
The "US did it" is a possibility that certainly should be addressed in the continuum of many
possibilities. I certainly would look for linkages between BHO
administration/Gates/academia/DeepGreen/China. China certainly does not act innocent,
covering up the early patients' stories and physical evidence a la our JFK scale.
As for US incompetence, the globalist media favors CCP; liberalism; Big Tech; Big
Medicine; the Democratic Party; along with the O/Clintonista FDA and CDC, have done
everything possible to hamstring accurate CV19 information amongst the citizenry, and
specifically against Trump. Huge TDS.
Months of near total shutdown on IV vitamin C, bowel tolerance dosing of vitamin C, high
dose vitamin D, quercetin and orthomolecular cocktails for prophylaxis and treatment. As well
as censorship and savage attacks on people trying to evolve the HCQ+AZM+zinc cocktail.
Prof Lieber's greatest "crime" is probably because he is responsible for saving untold
numbers of potential infectees, at least in the early stages https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2004/10/sensor-detects-identifies-single-viruses/
ie his work on virus detection & identification is why the Chinese government was able to
deal with the pandemic so quickly & effectively.
A bioweapon does Not have to have a high bodycount to work as intended; weapons of mass
destruction – even nukes (despite western brainwashing that they "ended WWII") –
have very few military applications and primarily target civilians.
Their main effect is disruption & demoralisation; in this Covid-19 has succeeded beyond
possible expectations.
The USA has patents for coronaviruses going back to 2003, post-SARS: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7220852B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10130701B2/en https://patents.justia.com/patent/10130701
Whilst these are Not the Covid-19 variant, it goes to show that they can indeed be
vat-grown.
Even should the current coronavirus be a natural mutation, it can still be weaponised.
Many of the most fearsome pathogens such as smallpox, anthrax and the bubonic plague are also
natural-born killers. Supposedly they have been eradicated from the face of the planet,
safely existing only in military laboratories around the globe, for research purposes of
course.
The circumstantial evidence that Cov19 is a bioattack is enormous, and the likelihood of
US origin is pretty damning. The US government will be desperate to point fingers everywhere
else, and is using the tried&tested trial by media +obfuscation, rather than logic and
reasoning.
If hard proof of US culpability manifests then the appropriate level of China's response will
be "nuclear" (I don't mean actual nukes, but something like dumping US treasury bonds).
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US
How?
Is there specific information tracing this "leak" to China?
Is it possible -- is it even conceivable -- that the same logic that you detailed to tip
the scales in favor of US biowarfare against China can also suggest that the bioweapon did
not "naturally leak" into the US but was deliberately deployed against the people of the
United States?
Follow the money: the goal of (speculated) biowar against China was, as you wrote,
not to kill but to economically devastate a formidable competitor-turned-adversary (same
thing the US has been doing to Iran by sanctions since at least 1995 with Clinton's executive
order, made permanent by the D'Amato Iran Libya Sanctions Act).
The goal of biowar against the people of the USA is to cripple the economy, to Weimarize
American commerce and enable those left standing to scoop up the life's work and investment
of millions of entrepreneurs for pennies on the dollar, with the added travesty that those
left standing are supplied with dollars by the very taxpayers whose assets are being
snapped up!
The Chinese government lied and continues to lie about the virus.
The Wuhan leadership knew in mid December and arrested doctors who leaked the info and
destroyed lab records.
Xi likely knew no later than January 1.
There are thousands of wet markets in southern China and SE Asia, but only the one a short
walk from the Wuhan Institute of Virology allegedly was the source.
Chinese researchers worked in America to develop this exact virus, adding HIV to SARS, and
left in 2015 to work in Wuhan.
Chinese national was arrested in 2018 in Detroit while carrying live SARS and MERS
viruses.
Chinese scientists working in Canada were kicked out in 2019 for shipping stolen
biological material to Wuhan.
It was developed in the lab, but I suspect the release was accidental. The cover up and
letting the virus spread around the world was intentional.
Xi is fighting to maintain power. He might not succeed
The US government did fund the research of those Chinese researchers at UNC. They
continued to fund them in China.
China's economy had already stalled. Then it lost the trade war. Banks were failing.
Foreign companies were moving out. Xi used the opportunity of the virus to avoid the disaster
of economic collapse and to hurt the rest of the world after the Century of Humiliation,
China would rather take the rest of the world down rather than go down alone.
Although nearby East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore had
been at greatest risk and were among the first infected, their competent and energetic
responses .
Japan's reaction to the Corona virus is/was not competent and energetic, unless you want
to count the way how the Japanese government dealt with the cruise ship 'Diamond Princess' as
a resounding success. Send army recruits without protection to the ship, start with 10
patients, quarantine the entire ship, end up with 765 infected individuals, and then send
people [tourists] home. I live on one of the 4 big islands and there is no lock down here.
Below is a picture I took just now [what they refer to as a Junior High School], Tuesday, 21
April, 2020 ~16:00 P.M. fro the window of my apartment.
Judge for yourself.
No masks. No distance. No governmental guidance. Japan is run by bureaucrats and it
shows.
Thanks for the article. It was a pleasure to read.
According to this reconstruction, the Chinese government first became aware of the
seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan. 14th, but delayed taking any major action
until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the number of infections greatly
multiplied.
This also fits in with an alternative explanation, which is admittedly wild but which I
would say is considerably less wild than the bioweapon-blowback theory:
J.Ross has proposed [ ] this whole thing may be a Chinese Communist Party 'Hoax,' in the
sense that while the 'new' virus is real (there are always 'new viruses'), the reaction was
at least 1000x what was necessary to deal with a bad flu strain and that China played it up
to scare people, especially the US. China's actions (mass shutdown) triggered a series of
events that scared everyone. But none of the data we have corroborate the Mass Killer
Apocalypse Virus fears. So what was this?
[MORE]
[This] theory would have it that the CCP's sudden about-face on The New Virus -- a
literally overnight about-face [Jan. 20] from "not a big deal" to "shut down a region with
60 million people, cue the Virus Apocalypse Movie film reels and the hazmat suits" -- was a
calculated bid to hurt the US and to hurt Western economies. By the time of the unexpected
about-face, they had 100% certainty it had spread to the US and elsewhere, AND that these
countries had the kind of media that would go into hysteria mode AND had the technological
capacity to do "testing."
This theory would attribute to the CCP a calculated bid to create a false virus panic
with plausible deniability ("so sorry! we didn't have the data! it was early; we reacted
the best we could; and hey even the highly-neutral WHO are calling us heroes") which would
scare people and trigger a series of events that throw the US and its satellites in Western
Europe into chaos, making the latter easier pickings for Belt & Road and Huawi
colonization, etc.; countries dazed by a mass-hysteria-recession are suddenly beggars, not
choosers.
The Chinese Communist Party's calculation would have been, on that fateful 'about-face'
evening, that the West was much less ready to handle a panic than Communist China would be.
It was a risk to them but it worked.
If this theory is right, in fact, the CCP succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. A case
of the dog finally catching the car bumper; what the heck now? The results for China's
regime itself are unclear, given that the cynical triggering of mass-hysteria-recessions in
major trading partners equates to a drought that sinks all boats.
The alternative, and many would say more plausible theory, is that the Chinese Communist
Party panicked, too, and reacted highly irrationally, taking a sledgehammer to a handful of
mosquitoes and then salting the earth where the flattened bodies of the mosquitoes landed.
Or a synthesis of the two may be true. It's hard to disentangle motivations. But the
unexplained 'about-face' is real and needs explanation.
In the end, does it matter? Even if we take the more innocuous version at face value: the
virus had nothing to do with bioweapons and simply mutated naturally from bats to humans, the
response of the West has been utterly atrocious either way.
We're now seeing a Yellow Peril 2.0 campaign ramped up at astonishing speed. The so-called
"liberal class", posturing as tolerant and sophisticated, is now trying to run on Trump's
right flank on China. Joe Biden's campaign ads on China are Cold War-style cariactures.
I've been seeing the consequences play out even in neutral places. I frequent quite a few
technology-related subreddits and the unmitigated hatred of China is truly a sight to be
hold. Even the most tangential topics get hijacked by zealots. For all the talk about how the
media's power is supposedly dimishing, the cattle is still very much influenced by what the
MSM tells them to think.
I hope Unz can syndicate some stories from The Grayzone, which I find to be the only
publication on the left which isn't in thrall with the DNC. Even Democracy Now! and Jacobin
are pushing state department scare stories on China. The total collapse of the American left
over the last 10-15 years is a greatly undertold story.
The alleged report by National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) is the most damning
piece of evidence if the report does exist. Here is the official denial:
"As a matter of practice, the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment
publicly on specific intelligence matters," Day said. "However, in the interest of
transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting
about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence
Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI
product exists."
So we are in the "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied."
territory.
What is important is not that Channel 12 (in Israel) followed the ABC article but that it
added an extra bit of information which was not in the original ABC article that the report
was passed to Israel and that the IDF held a first discussion about it still in November.
Fooling some ABC reporter by offering her Trump damaging leak that Trump knew but did
nothing could be easy but getting a confirmation from Israel where presumably sources in the
IDF had to be involved it does not seem as a simple get Trump operation.
I don't think people understand the extent of collaboration between US and China including
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) , It actually goes back to the early 1980's with
cooperation between USAMIID and WIV on Hanta Viruses. More recently extensive collaboration
between China and US on gain of function studies and virus hunting, especially with corona
viruses from bats. Ralph Baric UNC and Shih Zhengli from Wuhan have published papers together
. Funding of joint studies from USAMIID, NIAID, DARPA. NIH, etc. George Gao the Director of
Chinese CDC participated in the Event 201 simulation. There are many more ties. Google Wuhan
Biolake -a lot of global biotech companies there.
I dont think anyone can know the extent of the disease in China. After all a super
spreading virus from as early as November circulating in heavily polluted Wuhan, a city more
populated than NYC , which was also a major domestic and international transportation hub
with millions leaving the city for other destinations in China and internationally in the
weeks before Wuhan was locked down just before the New Year when everything shuts down for 2
weeks anyways. And yet the disease only spreads to Europe and US but not to any degree
outside Hubei province? Not believable.
And as for US deaths from COVID-19 being undercounted. Where is the evidence for that. CDC
has basically informed everyone to count a case as COVID based on suspicions (no positive
test needed). If a heart disease patient of 80 years old has a heart attack while also having
pneumonia its COVID-19. And those tests, they haven't been validated. There are many
different tests. We don't know the specificity of any of them. Very likely there are many
false positives. Also if a hospital can collect more money from medicare with a covid-19
diagnosis, guess whats going to be diagnosed more often.
So I am skeptical.
Now 30,000 deaths attributed to covid in 2 weeks is a lot. In a normal 2 week period there
would be 110,000 total deaths. So have there been 140,000 deaths in total, or just 110, 000
deaths with 30, 000 called Covid deaths? I dont know.
I actually expect more deaths than normal even without covid. Suicides. More deaths from
heart attacks and stroke due to financial stress and people delaying treatment out of fear of
getting the virus. More cancer deaths for same reason. Increased alcoholism and obesity
should trigger more deaths in the next few months.
One has to consider this an event on an international scale on a par with 9/11 in
magnitude and impact on freedoms. Curious how WHO declares pandemic on 3/11. Coincidence I
guess.
Lot of players in the Virus Industrial Complex stand to make a lot of money in coming
years as a result. The Globalists will push through digital ID and mandatory vaccination for
international travelers if not everyone and the Global Health Security Alliance (GHSA) will
be strengthened. The right will get tighter immigration controls and more bailouts for Big
Business. The left gets a taste of universal income and perhaps medicare for all (2009
pandemic helped get Obamacare approved). And the technocrats will get more toys for the
Surveillance and Tracking Industry with Big Data monitoring all the chipped individuals
health among other things. Cashless society to minimize virus spread pushed through so all
transactions can be logged. Everyone wins but the little guy.
And you can bet the Greenies will capitalize on this
Since the Virus Industrial Complex took over the Public Health Agencies in the 1970's we
have had endless Virus Scares, Swine Flu in 1976, Hepatitis B (1978) , AIDS in 1980,
MS-ME/CFS outbreaks (1984), HPV/Cervical Cancer (1984), HHV-6 (1986) , SARS (2003) , Bird Flu
(2005), Swine Flu (2009) , MERs (2012) Zika (2014) Measles (2014) Ebola (2015) and now
COVID-2019
See a pattern here?
We got virus finders/makers in academia and security /military agencies in the interest of
biowarfare defense and science working with vaccine and drug companies who receive funds to
develop treatments for these newly found/made viruses, in some cases before any human has
been infected. Reminds me of the time when those working for anti-virus software companies
were suspected of generating computer viruses to sell more software and be fastest to provide
the patch (since they created the virus). In any case, certainly a lot of interlocking
conflict of interests among members of the Virus Industrial Complex.
The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) of Ft.
Detrick fame has been partnered with the Wuhan Virlogy Lab since 1981. The Wuhan Lab has also
been partnered with college basketball powerhouse Duke University. Check out the Lab's
website. This facilityis a diagnostic lab not a bioweapons lab. The USA has bioweapons labs
located on the Chinese and Russian borders in Kazakhstan. Oh what a tangled web we weave .
I just want to say that we need to distinguish between conspiracy theory and conspiracy
hypothesis.
The out of Wuhan lab is a conspiracy hypothesis, or much closer to it. There is no
plausible benefit to the Chinese, and saying 'a disgruntled employee may have dun it to get
at dem dictators' is just speculation in the sky.
On the other hand the anectodal evidence for it being US action – the obvious
benefit, the time and place of the outbreak, the military games team, the precognition, as
well as how the CDC is not tracing patient zero in the US (if it was in China in Nov, surely
it could have been in the US then too, and then the whole propaganda story falls apart)..
Even the US crying wolf again, after so many times, is almost enough for me.
They are all anecdotal of course, but perfectly in line with the MO and historical
practice of the US government.
I now thank my friends when they call me a conspiracy theorist loon, as I point out that
Russiagate, Skripal, and so many of the government lines are pure conspiracy hypotheses
– one step further away from Kansas than my take!
Thanks for this first attempt to dig through the growing tale of corona. However, as we are
still in the fog of war, there can be no more then a preliminary assessment.
My take is still that Corona is far less of a threat then commonly believed, and that it
has been deliberately saddled with diverse agendas, so in any countries the leadership have
no interest in telling the truth.
1) I think there is sufficient proof that need not be repeated, and
2) it is better for everyones' mental health not to believe in killer viruses that force us
to abdicate even our most basic freedoms.
I believe that either a) the Chinese leadership thought that they were being attacked and
undertook their lockdown in good faith, or b) they played an outright GAMBIT to force western
countries into their own, more economically damaging lockdowns. The clue would be that China
is so strong that it can weather the blow, while Europe and to a lesser extend the US
cannot.
The director of the Chinese CDC, Dr Gao was part of Event 201 and studied in Oxford. Are
there dual loyalties in China? And then, in which direction?
Possibly, something minor was indeed released as a bioweapon, before, calculably, western
government incompetence and hysteria took over. I also believe that Israel used corona as a
screen for biowarfare-targeted killings in Iran, whose case is definitely a story apart.
The Russian lockdown can be explained by the serious assumption that if they did not lock
down they would be accused as the authors of a biowarfare attack on the US. At this point,
antirussian hostility in the West is so severe that they had to comply!
The coordinated actions across opposed political systems CAN be explained, and it does not
take a nutter to do it.
The majority of the American public still believe that a small group of Islamic
fundamentalists wielding only box cutters atomized the World Trade Center into dust –
in a cartoonish act of sorcery. If the lie is so big it has to become believable
– that amount of cognitive dissonance is simply just too much to bear. An already duped
population of such magnitude doesn't have much of a chance of coming out of this kind of
stupor, especially under the bubble of the most powerful propaganda machine in the history of
propaganda, therefore, I don't think this story is going to go anywhere.
Hi Ron! Your article for me is a breath of fresh air! Amidst what you accurately call the fog
of war it has been very hard to discern precisely what is going on in regards to this virus
situation. It's been extremely difficult to assert the "truth" or the "red pill" as some call
it when it comes to this pandemic. For that reason in fact, I would caution everyone that
cares about having a well calibrated "perception" sensor to tread with extreme caution when
it comes to this topic, as there isn't nearly enough evidence in any direction to assume one
theory over another. Faithfully adopting any one theory at the moment can only lead you to
become the equivalent of a 9/11 truther (the kind that obsesses about missiles, physics,
instead of the paper trail leading directly to Israel and Saudi Arabia).
Having said that there are just too many statistical improbabilities to simply brush aside
the Bioweapon possibility. I know quite a few influential figures in the alternative media
have unequivocally rejected all Bioweapon theories (specially the theory that the US/Israel
could ever conspire to spread a bioweapon) which is why I am very glad to see someone of your
Intellectual authority provide a credible well thought-out case supporting this increasingly
unpopular position (even in alternative circles). I get it, there is ZERO evidence to show
the US/Israel or even China are behind covid-19. But there is equally ZERO evidence to
support the official story (which is completely ridiculous until they provide more details)
about the guy that supposedly ate the covid bat.
With that disclaimer I will freely speculate below but keep in mind this is all
conjecture:
1. Anyone that claims is "impossible" for the US to let lose a bioweapon that would
destroy the US economy and kill Americans for the sake of hurting their "perceived" enemies
more needs to seriously examine EVERYTHING we know about the rulers of the American empire.
The first obvious question is who exactly rules the American empire? Are they righteous
rulers that make decisions based on what is best for the American people? The answer to this
question is a clear and resounding NO. The rulers of America follow a religion that states
anyone that is not part of their tribe is "cattle" and dispensable. On this grounds alone the
Rulers of America would have very little issue releasing a virus that kills (mostly) "cattle"
Americans. And then comes to "why would they tank their own economy" objection. To this
objection I'll simply point out that AMERICA IS RULED through financial coercion. A crisis is
very good for the rulers of America because they get to FURTHER consolidate their power over
America. Gaining more power over America, hurting your geopolitical rivals and ultimately
using the panic and confusion to pass draconian and more authoritarian rules are all
INCENTIVES for American elites to release a bioweapon.
Lastly, to everyone that says it's impossible for the American elites to tank their
economy and/or kill Americans in order to achieve a political objective has forgotten about
9/11! Our current rulers in Tel-Aviv paid a few saudi mercenaries to fly two airplanes into
the twin towers to kill a few thousands of people in order to go to war! Of course the
atrocity does not end there. A lot more Americans died as consequence of 9/11, even more were
affected economically and even a lot more lost civil liberties and standing in American
society. Right then and there you have a blatant and relatively recent event that almost word
for word matches the consequences of this virus. Considering this as a possible escalation of
tactics by the US/Israel against their enemies is a possibility. The US did drop the nuke of
an innocent, already defeated enemy. What makes anyone so sure this is beyond their "moral
code"
2.China decides to strongly stick by Iran, suddenly the Hong Kong protest springs out of
control, 50 percent of their pork is wiped out by a weird disease and now of course, the
mother of all "unforeseen" events kick starts a cascade of negative consequences for
China.
This is by far the most alarming set of "coincidences" of all. I remember last year
reading the Iran-China saga, as the Chinese refused to stop buying Iranian oil even as Japan
stopped buying oil after a Japanese tanker "coincidentally" was hit by a bomb in the Persian
gulf. Soon enough (if I am recalling correctly) a strange disease wipes out 50% of Chinese
pork causing possible food insecurity. Then came the Hong Kong riots that although started
for very legit reasons by the people of Hong Kong, soon enough had full on CIA spooks
speaking in the US congress, attacking people on the streets of Hong Kong! Lastly against all
odds these horrible events are somewhat weathered China and suddenly we have a pandemic that
not only damages China in the world stage, but serves as the perfect excuse to possibly
sanction, attack and possibly destabilize china.
Maybe I am completely paranoid or skeptical, but what are the chances of such a string of
events? Is there some data I am not privy to that can explain some of these coincidences? Is
there something to Chinese cultural norms that could explain these strange viruses literally
wrecking their economy and political stability? What are the chances all of these viruses
occur in a very short period and their severity and consequences directly correlated to
China's defiance of US orthodoxy on Iran/US hegemony?
Unlike some people here, I do not share the opinion that the Chinese government is some
sort of Angel or ideological ally. They are a government that ultimately acts on it's
interests and it's full of flaws (including exerting degrees of tyranny on their own people).
Having said that you don't have to be a communist to notice how strange this sequence of
events truly is. Bad things keep happening to China as it opposes US Hegemony. It might even
be statistically impossible for some of these things to happen by "chance", but maybe China
is just really unlucky, right?
But I do think that a careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over the
last couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative credibility of
those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the Korean war, China used their Cats Paw North to invade the South then the
Chinese army intervened under the pretense of being volunteers. Although Chinese ground
troops were not directly involved, Vietnam was otherwise a rerun of Korea with China not only
defeating the US but forcing it to cease isolating China. Carter issued a presidential order
for officials to aid Chinese growth., and within a few decades as the internal unrest Western
pundits predicted failed to amount to much, it became obvious that China's growth was at the
expense of the workers of the US made jobless and suffering deaths of despair not least by
illegal synthetic opioids from China. But then, by the begining of new millennium all
manufacturing was in China, including the burgeoning fortunes of the already wealthy, who
rose on a high tide of inequality. If history was any guide a new Gilded Age must end with a
visit from the Four Horsemen. Pressaged by the appearance of the SARS-CoV virus eighteen
years before, SARS-CoV-2 appears likely to end China's run of successes, because of the
disruption it has caused to the US.
"The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat virus named RaTG13, "However, RaTG13
was sampled from a different province of China (Yunnan) to where COVID-19 first appeared
and the level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to
an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change."
The important thing about the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not its lethality, which is about an
order of magnitude less than the original SARS-CoV of 2002, but rather SARS-CoV-2's extreme
transmissibility which is two orders of magnitude greater than its predecessor's. Anthony
Fauci warned the incoming US government administration in January 2017 of a newly mutated
coronavirus with extreme transmissibility and, apart from the greatly reduced lethality of
the massively more contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus, that is exactly what happened.
Unlike other nations, China had had no advance warning of the nature or existence of the
deadly new disease, and therefore faced unique obstacles.
They had the WHO and Fauci's public statements. Much more usefully China had the 2002
epidemic, caused by SARS-CoV which originated in China that year. In Singapore, there were
238 cases and 33 deaths from the SARS outbreak, in 2015 the worlds largest MERS-CoV outbreak
occurred in South Korea, and only the other year Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said it was
only a matter of time before Singapore had its first MERS-CoV case, so they had to be well
prepared. These countries were all set up and waiting to eradicate a disease just like
COVID-19.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage biological warfare
in hopes of maintaining American world power would certainly have been an extremely
reckless act
Excuse me? With the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus having a puny death rate yet
colossal infectiousness a centralised authoritarian state like China would be relatively
speaking best able to suppress it. A bioweapon would be tested on Whites as well as Chinese
before being released. There is no way in Hell that they would not understand that releasing
the SARS-CoV-2 virus in China would result in it sweeping through the US.
If an "out-of-control disease epidemic occurring in the Wuhan area" back in November 2019 was
the same corona virus, then toss the idea it was intentionally timed to mess with the Chinese
New Year in 2020. But then figure the deaths in China have been greatly under reported.
Furthermore, China may well have allowed carriers to travel abroad, especially to USA once
the outbreak was well under way.
However, as regards the whole biocrime aspect of the corona virus pandemic we really
cannot rely much on either US government/media or the Chinese. And if it was a bioweapon, who
among "us" would be so keen to target Iran where over ten percent of their parliament got
sick very early on? That is an Israel First kind of agenda. Or maybe it was Japan? Good
investigators keep an open mind.
Note (This is not a subject change) Over the last several decades the American public
health system has regularly failed to adequately warn our citizens about the causes and risks
of numerous epidemics that have claimed many millions of lives. Or were all sugar drenched
foods advertised as "Fat Free" really a "healthy choice"? So I do not quite understand why
Ron Unz considers the corona virus the one instance of stellar government incompetence, as if
to imply the current lock down has not nearly severe enough?!? Thank god he did not invoke
the party line panacea of the Gates vaccine!
Meanwhile, what about Kushner's fast tracking mass surveillance? Will it only be
temporary? Will it only be used for containing CV19? Ha. Let's all step in the van with the
nice man who will give us a teddy bear
On top of this alleged biocrime, examples are abounding where the opportunists are eager
to grab more power, and make killings of a sort, not least of which are the banks, Wall
Street and the war mongers.
Remember, the farther the tide goes out, bigger the tsunami that charges back in.
I don't buy it. If the US was going to go to the extreme length of releasing a highly
contagious virus into the territory of its new Deep State certified arch-enemy China, the
risk of contagioning yourself is extremely high. Especially with global trade and travel as
it is these days. Preparations would have been made in advance to make sure it would not blow
back by putting appropriate people and methods in place. Its too easy to blame incompetence
for this oversight.
If you're looking for plotters, look no further than Wall St. They are making out like
bandits in the latest bailout.
@dimples Unless of course the blow back is a feature and not a bug, which it must be
admitted, it usually is. If the US economy takes an enormous hit due to blow back, which it
has, then China is set up as the next ultra-bad guy to replace Russia, Russia Russia!. It
then becomes the new fixation of the Deep State's wet dreams, a new Cold War where plenty of
money goes down the toilet into the MIC's pockets and plenty of opportunity for the heroic
Special Ops types to keep the Hollywood grist mill grinding.
The original source went to great lengths to make it clear a massacre did in fact occur
that night/morning, only it was taking place in other areas of Beijing and the victims were
mostly protesting workers, not students. (At least 300 of them, by Chinese official figures.)
A person reading Unz's summary will come out believing this did not take place, although the
Chinese themselves don't really deny it did.
@dimples This is a reasonable view in my opinion. If you look at previous US false flag
events, they come at periods when new directions are needed to perpetuate the US war
machine's supposed usefulness. The 1990 Gulf War was clearly a set up that came just as the
old Cold War was ending and prepared the way for 911 and the Iraq War, which capitalized on
the US bases that had been set up during the Gulf War.
Currently the Russia, Russia Russia! narrative is petering out. The US Deep State wants to
perpetuate it but the Euros don't really want a war with Russia, a huge market for them. So
continuation of Russia Russia Russia! risks a split with the Euros.
But China, a nice new up and coming enemy there. Yum yum. So Covid-19 could be a US false
flag effort in that direction it has to be admitted. Damage to US economy? Who cares, the
Deep State doesn't. Its immune, rolling as it does in government loot.
My issue with the 'it's not china's fault"argument revolves around the secrecy in the
beginning. And then the arrests of those sounding the alarm inside China. One would think
that if this was from elsewhere the CCP would be screeching bloody murder from day one NOT
trying to downplay it and outright lie about it. Didn't China use the same playbook with
SARS? Silence and then misdirection.
The actual number is 43000 dead Americans. The China narrative lacks hard evidence. There is
mounting evidence that COVID-19 pandemic originated in the U.S. and may have been a terror
attack perpetuated by the U.S., which is pursuing a massive expansion of biological weapons
program. According to scholar Kevin Barrett: "It also may be a coincidence that the primary
U.S. bioweapons lab, Fort Detrick, was shut down in summer 2019 over fears that weaponized
pathogens might escape. It may be a coincidence that absurdly under-performing U.S. military
athletes came to Wuhan for the World Military Games in October and have since been accused by
China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs of being the source of the COVID-19 pandemic. It may be a
coincidence that at the same time those 'athletes' were in Wuhan, the World Economic Forum,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, and other Establishment titans
were hosting a pandemic simulation called Event 201".
Furthermore, "It may be purely coincidental that the virus appeared in Wuhan, home of
China's biggest biodefense laboratory, and China's biggest transportation hub, just in time
for the Chinese New Year, when most Chinese travel to visit relatives. Likewise, it could be
coincidental that the real-life COVID-19 pandemic almost perfectly mimics Lockstep, the
Rockefeller Foundation's recipe for a global police state emerging on the back of a
coronavirus-style pandemic", added Kevin Barrett. The U.S. regime unleashed this disease on
the world, and the U.S. regime has to be held accountable.
Your suspicions on this matter echo my own. I remember the Russian Government warning a
few years back that Western NGO's inside Russia had been discovered to be collecting DNA
samples of Russian citizens and that it was the opinion of the Russian Intelligence Services
that this information was being collected ny Western Intelligence Services for the purpose of
future biological warfare. When this outbreak in China made international news I remembered
the warning from the Russian Government. Then came the outbreak in Iran that killed many
Iranian political figures. Quite a damned coincidence if there ever was one?
If you ever run for state or national office and are on the ballot (or not) herr in
California you have my vote.
Look at a very partial list of the Chinese history of lying, almost by habit, just
in the last two decades alone!
China lied in 1999 about "massacres" committed by Serbia and bombed Belgrade to set up the
narcomafia organ-smuggling so called state of "Kosovo".
China lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and invaded Iraq in 2003.
China lied about "imminent massacres" and "Viagra rape" in Libya in 2011, and deliberately
misused a UN Security Council resolution to bomb and destroy that country and hand it over to
slave trading jihadi headchopper gangs.
China lied about Syria using chemical weapons from 2013 onwards, armed and trained and
financed terrorist gangs, conducted missile strikes on the country, and continues to occupy
and steal oil from East Syria.
China organised a blatant Nazi coup in Ukraine in 2014 and lied about it being a "popular
democratic revolution".
China murdered Iran's top general Qassem Soleimani in 2020 and lied about him being about
to conduct terrorist attacks when he was actually on a peace mission.
With just this partial list of Chinese lies in the last two decades alone, who would
believe anything China has to say?!?!?
Interesting article.
Especially, interesting for me, the aggressive arrest of a Harvard Prof' of chemistry for
technical irregularities in Grant paperwork, coincidentally at the time the virus emerges.
(we assume he personally wrote up those applications ? Imagine if everyone who had
written up a Grant application, which contained an error or two, in the US were to be dragged
off in chains by the FBI ? )
And also interesting the Belgrade Chinese embassy attack -- Mr Unz's materials put it in a
totally new perspective for me.
I suspect US gov been planning this attack for years. SARS outbreak in 2003, I suspect, was a
test, to test Chinese gov's response to bio attack. Note that SARS virus and the current
covid-19 virus aren't that different to be considered different viruses, hence covid-19 also
known as SARS-2. But the difference, SARS-1 had "kill switch", it wouldn't be able to infect
humans after a while.
During 2003 SARS, China acted swiftly causing the virus to be contained within China and
according to US gov simulation, covid-19 should've been the same, contained within China. But
China didn't act as swiftly as expected, causing the virus leaking back to US, this is why US
gov is furious, had China acted earlier, the virus wouldn't travel back to US.
The killing of Iranian general, it wasn't act of recklessness, it was diversion, so that
the Iran gov would be occupied by it while ignoring coronavirus spreading silently in their
country.
Ron, my friend (sort of), if you think you have trouble now what with COVID-1, impending
national bankruptcy, and a general flow of information that seems to have been some of the
most creative fiction in our lives, just wait until you manage to invite China into US civil
disputes. Our present difficulties are as nothing compared difficulties subsequent to direct
Chinese involvement in civil matters.
Historically, third party intervention quite often leads to foreign domination. Examples: US
in Afghanistan, US in Iraq (twice). Both time, native citizens thought it a great idea to
invite the US in.
And why do I say this? Well, you're presenting China as morally wronged. In your frame of
reference, that's an absolute, more important than anything else. But it's not the only
interpretation. Perhaps China committed an act of war by giving tactical help to the Serbs.
Perhaps that violation became severe when China gathered F117A wreckage. Perhaps China is
lucky that bombing the embassy was all that happened, and we are all lucky that things did
not escalate. This is actually less of a fantasy than your account, which is at best a bit
one sided, almost a "point and sputter".
In the US, such accounts are the precursor to advocacy. You should consider carefully the
consequences of advocacy in this case.
While I think the first part of the article is very interesting, and I acknowledge the
theoretical benefits that could exist from the US using COVID as a bioweapon, I find the
argument unpersuasive for the following reasons:
Obvious blowback : If the US infected China with a highly spreadable disease, why
did we not put in more aggressive measures to stop it from spreading in the US? Otherwise,
what's the point of hurting your enemy if you also get hurt? If the US was going to attack
China with a bioweapon, why would they not engineer a genetic/ethnic bioweapon that targeted
Han Chinese, as oppose one that could also kill everyone? Seeing the economic damage this has
done to us, it seems unlikely that such a contagious weapon would be the one an actor would
pick, as it would risk damaging their own homeland.
China has always been a hotbed of disease : A third of China's history has them
facing an epidemic of some sort. The 1957 "Asian flu" , 1968 "Hong Kong flu" and 1977
"Russian flu" all started in China. The black death probably started in China. Seems far more
likely that recent disease outbreaks are part of a historic trend, or gross Chinese
conditions, rather than a bioweapon attack.
On April 11, 2020, Gilad Atzmon published here an excellent article titled "A Viral Pandemic
or A Crime Scene?", in which he suggests circumstances have now created 'a paradigm change'
in the perception of the current viral pandemic.
He states: "Since we do not know its provenance, we should treat the current epidemic as a
potentially criminal act as well as a medical event. We must begin the search for the
perpetrators who may be at the centre of this possible crime of global genocidal
proportions." I concur.
All Americans (and others) who believe in China's culpability for the emergence of this
virus, should welcome such an investigation. And Mr. Pompeo, who so firmly plants the full
responsibility on China's doorstep, would receive vindication of his claims. I believe that
the governments and the people of China, Italy, Spain, France, and Iran, especially would
like to know the results of such a criminal investigation.
All nations of the world should band together now, and proceed jointly with this endeavor.
It needn't be approached with presumption of cause or intent, but simply to uncover the
entire truth of this event. That will be sufficient, and it is possible the results of this
worldwide investigation will prompt others into similar past events which have to date gone
unquestioned and unexamined.
I believe there are yet many truths about COVID-19 (and many other epidemics) still to
emerge. Perhaps one of the many people with personal knowledge of the source and method of
distribution will be sufficiently brave to come forward, perhaps another Edward Snowdon or
Chelsea Manning. We will then see how truly the US treasures its whistle-blowers.
**
The US needs to answer this question: HOW could US 'intelligence sources' possibly have
known in November – or even October – of a potential pandemic of COVID-19 that
would erupt – specifically in Wuhan – two months later? (Or that was already
erupting in Wuhan at the time, unbeknownst to the Chinese?). I believe the entire world would
demand the answer to this.
**
In early March the US government declared as classified all COVID-19 information, with all
communication to be rerouted through the White House and coordinated with NSC officials. Only
specified individuals with security clearance are permitted to attend secret meetings, with
no mobile phones or computers allowed. Excluded staff members claimed they were told virus
information was classified "because it had to do with China". The US needs to explain the
need for such extreme secrecy (while condemning China for lack of transparency), and how
coping with a domestic virus epidemic would involve China.
China, Italy, and several other nations in Asia and Europe have documented proof that
COVID-19 was circulating in their populations for several months before the outbreak in
Wuhan. And there are many, many reports, including from physicians, that infections in the US
were occurring as early as September, of 2019. These claims are too numerous, too detailed,
and too similar to be ignored. Japanese TV and press documented that Japanese tourists
returning from Hawaii were coming home infected with COVID-19 in September.
Why was Dr. Helen Chu issued a threatening "cease and desist" order to stop testing nasal
swabs her flu research team had taken in Washington State from October 2019 onward? The only
possible result would be to prevent the knowledge emerging that the virus had already been
circulating months earlier. As a rule, the reason we don't ask a question privately is
because we already know the answer, and the reason we don't ask the question publicly is
because we don't want anyone else to know the answer.
The US government needs to address the now-certain existence of the virus being widespread
in America and much of the world from September, 2019.
Your globalists and anti American tendencies come out in the first part and the last few
paragraphs of your piece. I didn't read most of the rest of your long winded article.
Bottom line, the Chinks infected the world whether by incompetence or deliberately. They then
intimidated the world with their economic might and with the help of their lackeys in the WHO
and the PC/shit lib elite in the West to keep the flow of infected people to keep coming into
the West. Italy is the tragic example but you can include the rest of the West including
America where that old bag Nancy Pe-lousy was celebrating in China Town in late February.
They, the PRC, should be made to pay reparations.
Not to dismiss Ron Unz's reasoning outright, but it has been claimed that the virus cannot be
the product of direct genomic manipulation.
That's barring any breakthrough in genomic manipulation techniques, a breakthrough that
would have to be kept secret. What these scientists have said is that publicly available
techniques would have left traces in the viruses genome. They claim that any such traces are
absent from the virus's genome.
If that holds up, then the only remaining possibility would be a virus that was bred. It
could have been bred by taking the bat virus and passing it through other types of animals,
selecting for increased virulence. It has been claimed that ferrets would fit the bill since
they have the same ACE2 receptor as humans. Ferrets are easy to handle under laboratory
conditions.
If the US deep state did something like this, then their reasoning would have to be on
what lines? "Let's take this virus that we have bred to dock very easily onto the human ACE2
receptor and set it loose on the Chinese. The virus will devastate them will they still be
able to contain it – so that there won't be too much blow back."
Maybe they misjudged the product of their virus enhancement effort. Still, it needs be
kept in mind what presuppositions have to be put in place for the blow back theory to
work.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and
the reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones.
Their reasons are extremely practical:
1. In the absence of national elections they are free to make realistic promises. Since
they have kept every promise they've made to date they have an investment in staying honest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China
,
2. In the absence of factions like our Republicans and Democrats, there's no-one to blame
or pass the buck to, nor lie competitively, nor attack proposed or existing policies. There's
no 'them,' there's only 'us.'
3. The Chinese have always been willing to make sacrifices now for benefits later, which
incentivizes being honest up front.
4. Telling the truth is cheaper in the long run, which is one reason China has the
cheapest government on earth.
5. People are much more willing to cooperate with truth-tellers. Governing is infernally
difficult and being truthful makes it vastly easier.
6. Straight talk, especially from leaders, is attractive (Trump's appeal to his base is
that he occasionally blurts out something true). Asked on TV how it felt to be President, Xi
said, "People who have little experience with power–those who are far from
it–tend to regard politics as mysterious and exciting. But I look past the
superficialities, the power, the flowers, the glory, the applause. I see the detention
houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level."
Imagine an American politician talking like that.
7. Smart people tell the truth more often than dumb people. People out of their
intellectual and experiential depth, which our politicians usually are, tend to lie. The
average IQ of China's top 5,000 political leaders is 140 and all of them have 25 years
successful governing experience. They're professionals who are less likely to lie than your
brain surgeon.
@Otto von Komsmark I've read the Chinese are proud that they'll "eat everything under the
sun". China is a very old culture. People might have differing opinions, but I think it
strange that now we have all these cross-overs from the animal kingdom.
@animalogic I think it was Zero-hedge that said the professor lied about his Chinese
funding, making him in effect an agent of China. That's not some burocratic form error.
I think the article is a good summary but the author is also guilty of embellishment. For
example, he used the word "concerted" at least twice, when he has no proof of that.
Having grown up with in the University of Chicago South Side Chicago neighborhood , then
lived in racial, criminal, immigration anarchy New York City 1985-91
, I m rarely if ever surprised about national or international events. The seemingly
incomprehensible views and policies of American, diaspora, Neo Conservative, Hollywood,Wall
Street Jews makes sense in awful ways:
They hate us – want us replaced
Madeline Albright (How did this ugly woman from Central Europe get to be USA Secretary of
State? Why did she demand bombing the sh&$ out of the Serbs to creat a Muslim beach head
in Central Europe ? What is she ? Catholic? Episcopalian Christian? Oh she s Jewish again but
wants to convert to Islam to protest President Trump s proposed Muslim immigration plan).
I look at this Chinese Kung Flu Coronavirus and just note how sensible nationalist
governments/societies in Japan, Taiwan, Hungary, Slovakia and of course Israel handle it:
Strict, zero tolerance immigration, student visas from Coronavirus plague infected areas
– also no millions of Muslim young male migrants.
Pretty much no one in these sensible nationalist societies care if Jews at the SPLC, The
Atlantic Magazine, or National Review, CPAC or the Wall Street Journal scream that they
are:
RACISTS
FASCISTS
NAZIS
It s probably too late in my life to try to learn Hungarian or Japanese.
But I think I/we should all try to learn translations of :
"Shut up Jews"
"Support Israel the homeland of the Jews so go home"
Life isn t complicated .
It s the same with terrible Black AA ga g murders in my Chicago . same with TB, bubonic
plague heroin addicts street people in LA's Skid Row, Gypsy no go places in Romania or
France.
From Ron Unz's article linked above on the Canadian kidnapping of the Huawei billionaire's
daughter, Ron himself said something which points to the perhaps deeper truth here
In that piece our host Ron suggested that the clear best course for China, was to put the
squeeze on USA Jewish billionaire and political king-maker Sheldon Adelson, the big political
funder of Trump and US Republicans etc Adelson being the casino king of Macau who earns most
of his billions there under Chinese authority, Adelson being able to get the Huawei exec
released with just a phone call to Trump, if Chinese would just walk into Sheldon's casinos
and threaten shutdown
China never moved to touch Sheldon's businesses in China, and as I said at the time, this
is because of the deeper frightening truth, that the big powers tend to work together behind
the scenes, even whilst in public disputes, like high school football teams in rivalry
Chinese media accuse the US of creating a bio-weapon, US media accuses China of the same,
the classic rivalry of Orwell's 1984
Both governments share motives of culling pensioners as covid-19 does; distracting from
incipient collapse of excessive economic debt; establishing greater elite surveillance and
control; and enabling elites to buy and own ever larger sectors of global economic life; in
other words the classic 'NWO' of conspiracy talk.
Half a century ago, Antony Sutton proved that 1940s-1970s USA had been transmitting tech
to the old Soviet Union (often via Israel), to create the 'Best Enemy Money Can Buy' the Cold
War was essentially fake, and Putin came out of that, and continues trading favours with the
USA Putin doesn't question 9-11, USA doesn't question false flags in Chechnya etc
Sites like the 'Secret Life of Jews in China' show how European Jews were part of China's
Mao revolution, even becoming politburo members Chabad centres abound in China despite few
nominal Jews there, linking hotlines to Jared Kushner's Chabad centre in DC and 'Putin's
rabbi' Berel Lazar in Moscow
One has to go one level above the US vs China mudslinging, and consider it is all likely
as fake and staged as was US-Soviet rivalry China and the USA may well be working together on
covid
--
The idea that Covid-19 was a bio-weapon deployed in China by the US visitors to the late
2019 military games, was promoted early on by Veterans Today (VT) where Unz's Kevin Barrett
hails from. VT is a website widely-read by world governments, despite its partly kooky and
ridiculous articles about space aliens etc
Gordon Duff, co-chief of VT, said out loud in a radio interview – where he also
outed himself with a chuckle as a 'self-hating Jew' – that 30% of the material on his
site is intentionally false and ridiculous, as the price he must pay for publishing true
'intel drops' without getting shut down / murdered by the US gov't in intel-speak, this is
called 'poisoning the well', you publish the most damning truths on self-discrediting sites
like VT or David Icke, where the typical reader easily dismisses truth because it's published
next to articles about space alien lizards ruling planet earth
@Mustapha Mond Yes, what if the chief objective was not to hurt China by disrupting its
society and economy but to make the whole world angry with China. Ron Unz article is the
voice crying out in the desert which will not stop the tsunami of memes: WuFlu ,
China did it , China must pay for our sufferingWe must punish China.
that has been whipped up from the very beginning and only will be getting loader and
stronger.
Some of the things you list are to benefit the insiders. No little thing that could bring
profit will be left to chance. It is just like when World Trade Center being transferred from
Port Authority before 9/11. Was it critical to the operation? Could they get the terror event
if WTC was not owned by Larry Silverstein? Yes, they could but few extra bucks could have
been made with Larry Silverstein being the front man. Or just when American troops were
entering Bagdad, who and when organized special outfits who systematically were visiting
Bagdad museum and looting it according to the shopping list?
Ron Unz is underestimating their evil and abilities.
@Ozymandias If "they" were going to do such a thing, how would they go about it, and what
would have been their thinking?
Deliberately engineered biological agents can often be detected by careful analysis of the
pathogen's genome. Bioinformatic programs can detect odd sequences that shouldn't belong; the
chances of a purely natural explanation for the inclusion of some sequences are rare, for
instance. Let's say I wanted to create a super virus capable of destroying humanity. One
obvious way to do this would be to take viral sequences from certain dangerous pathogens and
combine them into one. That might do the job, but obviously there is a risk that comes along
with doing with that: current sequencing and bioinformatic techniques may quickly discover
such an act and invite retaliation by the victim. " That shouldn't be there! " If half
of China started dying of a mysterious virus composed of sequences from various unrelated
viruses, then obviously there is an attack underway because the chances of such elements
coming together in nature is very low, practically zero. A response would likely follow in
short order.
Is there a way around this? Maybe.
There are several odd things about Sars2 (Covid-19) that I haven't seen before: 1) it
spreads in contravention to how -- some -- previous viruses we've dealt with in recent memory
have spread. Specifically, there are a higher-than-expected number of cases are transmitted
before the patient become symptomatic with this virus. This is why initial airport screenings
failed to stop the virus from entering the United States, aside from lax screening*. In the
past, most of these viruses like MERS and SARS weren't particularly contagious when the
infected carriers were asymptomatic, so simply checking their body temperature with a
thermometer and following up with contact tracing was enough to stop the spread. 2) unlike
both SARS and MERS, this virus is remarkably contagious for a novel pathogen, even moreso
than the flu 3) this virus may have a very long asymptomatic phase, up to two weeks in some
people. One explanation is that something similar is true of other viruses that cause the
common cold and the flu but we haven't really noticed it before because those viruses are
comparatively less lethal. If you believe in a conspiracy, on the other hand, this would be a
feature deliberately engineered to ensure maximum transmission.
Elements of the conspiracy:
1. This outbreak happened just before Donald Trump's reelection campaign got underway and
during crucial trade negotiations. Maybe they wanted to put pressure on the Chinese
government to increase Trump's chances of getting reelected. His approval ratings according
to 538 have been stuck in the low to mid 40s for essentially his entire presidency. He needs
a consistent approval rating above 47% or so to ensure a high chance of reelection.
2. This happened just after a failed Hong Kong color revolution by youthful protestors.
Many of the signs held by protesters included the kinds of things a boomer FBI agent might
think would curry favor with the 4chan crowd -- pepe the frog, various slogans. It failed, in
part, because that crowd didn't buy it. Hong Kong protestors were relentlessly mocked on some
alt-right websites as morons wanting to deliver their people the "freedom" enjoyed by the
West: dozens of genders, speech laws, feminism The case of a Canadian waxing salon being
forced to wax a male-to-female transgendered person's genitals was prominently used to mock
Hong Kong protesters demanding Western freedom.
Conspiracy:
The CIA may have bred a virus to be easily transmissible but much less lethal than the
original SARS virus that made the headlines years ago. They may have expected the virus to
spread quickly in China and panic the Chinese population, undermining faith in the government
so the CIA could once again try to overthrow their rival. They never expected it to come back
on them.
If one were going to create a viral agent guaranteed to escape detection as an artificial
construction, one might do the following: take a known virus indigenous to the targeted area
and breed it in animals native to the area (bats) so that it spreads undetected until
symptoms present while having a traceable lineage when examined with bioinformatic software /
select it against human tissue samples in vitro so that in infects human cells easily.
The former technique might leave behind a tale tell signature: the virus has a long
incubation time within the host. Why? Well, some animals have lower resting body temperatures
than humans. This can affect which pathogens are able to infect them. Pathogens that have
evolved to replicate at one temperature may not replicate very well under another one.
Animals like opossums and hibernating bats are less likely to die from rabies infection, for
instance, because they have lower body temperatures, among other factors. Humans and dogs are
not so lucky because both have higher body temperatures where the virus can replicate more
easily. It's sort of strange how SARS2 (Covid-19) takes so long to clear in some patients --
up to two weeks or more. Maybe this occurs because, despite being able to easily infect human
cells, it replicates poorly at first because it is adapted to bats, which often have a lower
resting body temperature. Although, it is possible this could occur naturally as well.
The latter can be done by infecting cell cultures in dishes and examining which cultures
became infected and to what degree. This can be done by measuring viral titers -- dilute
extracted cell culture liquid, filter out cells and bacteria, apply diluted mixes to new
cultures, examine results, selected superior viral lines for continued manipulation. There
are lots of ways to set this up. Maybe you tag your viral proteins with a florescent protein
and examine after some period of time; the more virus that is being made, the stronger the
signal. Select that particular culture and continue.
Point: there are lots of ways to do this, some pretty simple (but probably expensive,
dangerous, and time-consuming nonetheless -- which is why dumb Middle Eastern terrorists
haven't tried it so far). The important thing is that such a set up would avoid including
obviously unnatural elements that could never be explained by random chance -- the inclusion
of sequences from other viruses, for example. This might come off looking natural, even if
remaining mysterious to the outside observer.
*The American government was warned about this virus but didn't take it seriously.
Explanation 1: Trump and his advisers are greedy imbeciles (more likely). Explanation 2: the
American government didn't expect this to be a big deal because they created it to be less
lethal than previous viruses, perhaps not understanding that a lower death rate over a larger
population would result in higher casualties (less likely).
Americans arriving at JFK from locked-down Italy are shocked by the lack of US
screening for coronavirus
1) Trump is a loudmouth and a braggart. If he knew ANYTHING about this, he probably would
have let it slip by now. Elements of the British government have had to restrict some
information they share with the Americans for fear that Trump would leak it to his friends
during his then regular discussions with people over unsecured lines. Would the CIA really do
something extraordinary like this without his knowledge?
Points in favor:
1) The UK, a country that often works with the Americans to do nefarious things, didn't
take this very seriously, either. They acted as if they didn't expect this to be a big deal.
Other countries that usually don't work that closely with US intelligence to the same degree,
have taken Covid-19 seriously even if they have failed to contain it. Although, this is
probably wrong. The nations that have dealt best with this are the ones that have had lots of
previous experience with similar viruses and whose populations are naturally more inclined to
work together.
2) The timing and location of the viral outbreak. Isn't Wuhan a major transportation
hub?
One thing I notice is how crisply written this is, compared to the very dense, plodding
style that characterizes much of his previous work
A very good overview of the situation and a thoughtful analysis of the finger pointing
that's going on
Regardless of whether the lock down measures have been an overreaction or not, most
reasonable people will realize that we may never know what might have been, had we not locked
down
Would the health system have been able to cope ?
What would happen when hospitals are overwhelmed by serious respiratory cases ?
China's very forceful reaction now looks absolutely brilliant
That extremely energetic reaction also hints that the Chinese leadership may have
suspected an attack
". ..the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had
attempted to minimize or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous
as to defy rationality. "
This assertion is absolutely untrue, as most readers who have followed this story early on
will know. You conspicuously left out of your conspiratorial musings the news of the
"whistleblower" Wi Leniang, the 34-year old ophthalmologist who had worked at Wuhan Central
Hospital, and had already alerted his colleagues late last year about a suspicious viral
outbreak, for which he was subsequently arrested and punished by authorities. Millions of
people in China are familiar with his tragic story – he eventually died.
On January 9 the World Health Organization released the following press statement,
providing sufficient information that would have warranted or obliged the authorities to have
immediately closed the Wuhan airport and train station to prevent the contagious spread of
the virus to other regions of the world through unwittingly infected carriers.
Instead, authorities waited two entire weeks before closing the Wuhan airport, during
which time the virus spread inevitably to other countries through the many international
passenger flights. According to military game theory, such inaction would surely benefit
China, which could better deal with an outbreak, whereas most other countries would suffer
more severely in comparison. For this reason, regardless whether the release of the
presumably engineered virus was released intentionally or accidentally, the Chine government
is culpable for having allowed the pandemic to evolve. So at least in this particular case
the allegations of the Trump administration are correct.
Your narrative omitted these indisputable facts, which you then denigrated as " so
ludicrous as to defy rationality ", yet after a Communist Party meeting in mid-February,
some of those responsible for having minimized or concealed the serious nature of the
outbreak were officially "demoted" (received a slap on the wrist):
Those who praise China's alleged competence in the matter have a dilemma to deal with.
Either the authorities are competent, in which case they effectively waged biological warfare
against the rest of the world (using incompetence as plausible deniability of intent) in
order for their economy to come out ahead, comparatively, in the long run, compared to a
situation where only their own economy would have suffered by effective early containment
measures; or else they were indeed incompetent, that an accidental release from one of their
labs in Wuhan becomes even more plausible than it already is. Either way, the focus of
inquiry must remain on China, rather than conducting an exercise in reflexive exoneration.
Fantastical insinuations pointing the finger elsewhere, for which no strong evidence has been
presented, are just a distraction.
Accidental releases have been known to occur, but apparently only the level-4 lab in Wuhan
was known to have been working on enhancing those bat-based viruses with gain of function
properties and chimeric qualities.
Your entire conjecture about the strong likelihood of US culpability essentially rests
almost entirely on the vague notion of " extreme recklessness ", which in such
dangerous matters, as the release of deadly viruses, appears to be significantly less likely,
from an analytical perspective, than an accidental release from a biological lab in
Wuhan.
While your lengthy article shows the possibility that the virus originated in the US and was
spread intentionally, with a lot of trust developed by our own Dr. Fauci of the NIAID and $37
million in grants (long before Trump) to study bat coronaviruses in collaboration with China,
I think you are missing one important feature.
Trump and his neocon clown car are loathed by the Intelligence Agencies. Unlike Obama, who
loved to have the CIA "playing" in his sanctioned, National Emergencies countries (Yemen,
Libya, Venezuela, Ukraine, Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Burundi), backing
coups in Egypt, Honduras and the big one, Ukraine, and delighting in droning and expanding
Bush's two wars into 7 or 11, depending on how you count, Trump for all his idiotic saber
rattling has started no wars; Bolivia is his only coup, Nicaragua his only war-like National
Emergency. You may have missed the events of Russiagate and Ukrainegate, built on incompetent
spycraft, and an impeachment started by a CIA "whistleblower", but to give Trump credit for
something as devious as an obvious CIA op (by your own speculations) seems disingenuous. Much
more likely the CIA (whose hubris and incompetence rivals Trump's) likely were running this
operation from at least when the first bat coronavirus grants were sent to Wuhan (2011? 2015?
I've read both). My guess is the CIA did not even share their brilliant idea with the
loathsome Trump, as he would have likely squashed it as he finally did with John Bolton's
out-of-control machinations. I think the CIA sees the spectacular failure of their operation
as a chance to embarrass and likely overthrow Trump. If they had destroyed the Chinese
economy, they would have taken full credit, as it is, they look masterful in re-establishing
the Establishment, and ridding themselves of a non-supportive Trump.
Coronavirus catastrophe? Even though the CDC has been accused of exaggerating the number of
deaths from the Coronavirus by allowing doctors to assume , without testing ,someone died
from it, the number of deaths are not alarming . According to the CDC's provisional
statistics posted on April 20,2020 , from February 1 to April 18 ,2020 there were only 15,252
deaths from the Coronavirus out of a total of 603,184 deaths from all causes ,in a US
population of 327,167,434 . For the one week ending April 11 there were 5483 COVID-19 deaths
and for the one week ending April 18th there were only 568 deaths . cdc.gov . Deaths from the
Coronavirus appear to be on the decline in mid-April ,just as they often do in a typical flu
season as Spring returns in the Northern hemisphere. As a number of doctors have observed the
lockdowns, social distancing and unemployment resulting from the draconian measures taken by
Governors across the US are leading to an unprecedented number of cases of depression and
suicides.
It is well established,that people who are depressed end up with many types of illnesses due
to their compromised immune systems .
The tragedy of the Coronavirus pandemic is ,that as more and more circumstantial evidence
comes to light ,it was an engineered crisis or ,as some investigators have termed it ,a
planned-demic see, for example, "How to create a fake pandemic"jamesfetzer.org.
Deep and enduring thanks to Ron Unz and his team for this site, an oasis of common sense in a
desert of nonsense.
Regarding:
"So if American bio warfare analysts were considering a corona virus attack against
China, isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
corona virus? Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have
seemed so implausible at the time?"
There might be another possibility. That being that the American plans you outline were
formulated and carried out by the deepest, eternally-entrenched portions of the American
security state and that "senior administration officials" were simply never consulted about
bio warfare efforts against China. Very possibly including those earlier events noted, aimed
at Chinese agricultural interests.
Two birds with one stone would be the result: 1) China is (theoretically) taken down by
orders of magnitude; 2) That usurping outsider, the ever-disruptive President Trump exits in
January, as no incumbent would be judged to have a 2% chance of withstanding the hurricane of
events tied to the pandemic's arrival in America.
All the better, then, to allow Trump and other leading American politicians to
convincingly lead the chorus against China, and all done with never any possibility of a leak
from any political "source" about anything pertaining to the background and planning of the
operation.
Implications of such a possibility are too monstrous to consider, so am certain this
assertion can't be true. Right?
@Hail" this whole thing may be a Chinese Communist Party 'Hoax,' in the sense that
while the 'new' virus is real (there are always 'new viruses'), the reaction was at least
1000x what was necessary to deal " – The reality parsing by the hoaxers always lead
to the discovery of more hoaxes. Check with your guru Kunt Wiitkowski if he was not the one
who advised Chines how to pull off the hoax. Didn't he tell them that only 10,000 would have
die?
@swamped I, too, doubt that Trump would have been aware of what was going on, this would
have been an operation that was kicked off now because if Trump gets re-elected, he'll
hopefully clean house, and all that preparation would have been for nothing.
That having been said what's your explanation why Trump did bring a lot of neocons on
board, who effectively blocked him. If he really wanted to placate the democrats, there would
have surely been hawks who weren't as dangerous as, e.g. Bolton.
@Jim Jatras He said back then he thought that. Hasn't expressed his current view. None of
us knew back then that the US was dumping pure U238 on Yugoslavia making large parts
uninhabitable for a thousand years.
"Checking the Jay Matthews story, I see this: Hundreds of people, most of them workers and
passersby, did die that night, but in a different place and under different
circumstances."
There is much that Jay Matthews didn't say. Read this:
It is not. Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, now known as W-H Group, is a private
company based in Hong Kong that holds a majority of shares in China's largest meat processor,
Shuanghui Foods. The fact that it is based in Hong Kong does not make it "Chinese" in any
sense. It is a totally foreign-owned company. The ownership of W-H is mostly American, not
Chinese, and Smithfield was involved with the company. It was a complicated kind of reverse
takeover, but nothing much of substance changed.
It is the largest pork company in the world, number one in China, the U.S. and much of
Europe.
And the effect of the swine flu was to shift production and sales from Shuanghui China to
Smithfield in the US.
China's sweeping Belt and Road Initiative has threatened to reorient global trade around
an interconnected Eurasian landmass
By the time of the Antonine Plague of 165 to 180 AD (which surely inspired Aurelius's
stoicism, and may have killed Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) direct trading
links between China and Rome had been established. On March 2019 Italy was the first G-7
country in Europe to become a member in the Chinese Belt and Road project . Did that
globalisation reproduced the same pandemic-friendly environment that had decimated Ancient
Rome, which rivaled China in population at the time of the Roman diplomatic mission from
Marcus Aurelius to the Han Court in 166 AD?
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines that they
generated, the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had
attempted to minimize or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous
as to defy rationality.
Hardly, because intent is irrelevant. Not discharging their duty to inform the
international community in a timely manner of COVID-19 being extremely infectious and not
massively exaggerating the infection to death ratio and duping the WHO and modelers like
Imperial College into accepting terrifying but bogus infection to death ratios of 1 to 3 0r
4% as Dr. John Ioannidis says in an update ( HERE ) means quite simply that China must never ever
be relied on again. Next time, and there probably is going to be another such novel
coronavirus at some point in the future, China might overcompensate and downplay something
extremely dangerous.
Lieber had had decades of close research ties with China, holding joint appointments and
receiving substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of financial reporting
violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant applications -- the most
obscure sort of offense -- and on the basis of those accusations, he was seized by the FBI
in an early-morning raid on his Cambridge home and dragged off in shackles, potentially
facing decades of federal imprisonment.
AS I understand it the case against him was precipitated by indications that he was taking
money from the Chinese Government and lying to Federal investigators about it while getting
$18 million from the Defence Department. He was not a virologist, unlike professor Montagnier
who co-discovered HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and received a Nobel prize. He says the
SARS-CoV-2 virus is an artificial laboratory created pathogen, which has fragments
of–surprise, surprise–HIV in it. He wants his expertise to be relevant to what
everyone is currently obsessed with. But life in this crazy old world is not like that.
Unless you are Ioannidis.
In the early days of the CoV-19 discussion here, a solid body of commenters suggested the
strong likelihood of being a US biological attack on China on the basis of its propensity for
aggression towards its designated "enemies" by the only method of causing substantial damage
to a powerful rival's economy under the cover of plausible deniability. Considering the
inevitable demise of the US as the only superpower, it is not beyond the ruling cabal's remit
to conceive such schemes to thwart the Chinese economic ascendancy. Yes, the initial
suspicions of foul-play were reputational (the US habit of resorting to heinous crimes
against other nations) and strategically connected as well (the only way to damage a strong
opponent short of an all-out nuclear conflagration with uncertain outcome ).
On the other hand, there were a series of "coincidences" widely discussed here that
started giving credence to a full-blown plan of biological attack aimed at the Chinese
population by engineering a virus capable to discriminating the target victims. This has been
partialled discounted, but not completely until the full sequence of CoV-19 evolution is
mapped. Meanwhile, the official narrative has switched to the rejection of the theory of a
man-made virus to the "accidental" release by the Wuhan lab, in my view to deflect any effort
to research the source of the virus and reinforce the tale of Chinese negligence. But the
trouble is that there are many virologists now busy debunking that too and asserting that
CoV-19 is unnatural.
I have come across a report on Australian Media Centre where the evolutionary virologist
Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney reveals that "the level of genome sequence
divergence between CoV-19 and the closest known bat relative in nature is equivalent to 50
years of natural evolutionary change, which suggests that CoV-19 is a synthetic creation in a
lab either by insertion of suitable genetic material or, alternatively, growing different
cultures in a laboratory with cells with the human ACE2 receptor. This process involves the
gradual adaptations to bind the virus with the human receptor by "training" the virus to seek
an efficient method of binding by natural random mutations until one progeny hits the
jackpot. Although this process does not require insertions by extraneous genetic material
(not strict engineering) because the virus itself produces the required adaptations, it is
notheless a human interference with the natural world by breeding something for a, obviously,
nefarious purpose. The great advantage of this process is to disguise the fact that it is a
contrived lab creation.
There are many historically significant events the truth of which will remain hidden for a
time. But this case involves a strong player (China) and it will – as wel las many
outraged scientists worldwide – leave no stone unturned to reveal the unfathomable
depth of the US's den of iniquity.
But as this epidemic is shaping up, it is likely that the estimated death toll will be
comparable to that of the seasonal flu in a bad year.
That's not correct -- at all. Our hospital system in major cities like New York are NEVER
brought to the brink with seasonal flu. The likely number of deaths from Covid-19 has already
exceeded the number of deaths estimated from seasonal flu over the past 6 of 10 years -- in
just over six weeks. And that's under unprecedented quarantine.
Quoted numbers of deaths are as unreliable as the number of infections.
Numbers do not need to be 100% "reliable" in this case. Many of those who have died have
done so in hospital where they have been tested. We can also measure the baseline death rate
in NYC. When we do, we find a tremendous daily increase far and above anything caused since
9/11. Clearly, there is something going around that city that is killing lots of people. No
flu in recent memory has done that.
Cause of death as stated in a death certificate is often, and even usually, wrong, and
during an epidemic caused by a virus that induces respiratory difficulty it is likely that
virtually all deaths due to respiratory dysfunction will be attributed to the virus without
confirmatory evidence.
This kind of flawed logic could be used to dismiss virtually any epidemic. At some point
the number of deaths is so high that no counter argument could reasonably be believed. We've
already reached that point. There are only so many respiratory deaths that occur over any
time period. Even if we moved 100% from other categories over to Covid-19 we would still find
peculiarities in the data.
Deaths in New York City Are More Than Double the Usual Total
Furthermore, virtually all deaths of persons testing positive for covid19 will be
attributed to the virus even though the deceased may have had multiple other diseases, any
one of which could have been the cause of death.
That's certainly only going to be minor contributory factor. Huge numbers of people above
the average baseline don't just magically drop dead from other causes all at the same time.
If someone gets Covid-19 and dies, it is reasonable to assume it was the proximate cause in
the majority of cases. Only so many people die from X at any one time. If twice that number
start dying all at the same time, there is a problem.
"Herd immunity is likely now widespread, so the thing should fizzle out soon, with or
without continued population incarceration."
Please do not comment on things you clearly don't understand. It is estimated that no more
than a few percent of the American population has been exposed to Sars2 (Covid-19). Herd
immunity requires some high multiple of that number. We are nowhere near herd immunity. You
don't even know what that means in all likelihood.
Professor Luc Montagnier, Who Won Nobel Prize For Codiscovering AIDS Virus, has said
COVID-19's HIV "strains" could be put there in the virus's RNA only by human expert
intervention in a laboratory.
The excerpt from the French TV program where he said it can be found on YouTube.
What's "funny" is the way most USA, or, how should we say?, USA-close, media reports the
fact, starting from misleading headers (headers which, as usual for the USA and, how should
we say?, USA-close media, are all clones, with tiny changes from one to the other).
Professor Luc Montagnier, Who Won Nobel Prize For Codiscovering AIDS Virus, Says
Coronavirus Was Man-Made In Wuhan Lab.
This, when the professor clearly stated he is only a scientist, and he only wanted to
relate facts that many other research groups have found but have been left unsaid due
to enormous pressure, and he stated equally clearly that it is not his knowledge, duty,
competence, will, to give opinions on who did it, where, why.
The average IQ of China's top 5,000 political leaders is 140
Have not most of the all-time Evil Greats been brilliant? We have them, Russia has them.
How is China having them unique? If Ron's suspicions over this are close to true and even if
not, we already have volumes of evidence in so many other situations proving we have
brilliant evil-doers aplenty on the U.S. side in any case.
The rest of your points are agreeable to me. But every time I've hung my hat on the
'brilliant' high-I.Q.-types I'm always disappointed. They test well but in command of things
they bring us wars and now this. The medical people are high-I.Q. as hell, they've vacuumed
up half our GDP and research dollars for 100 years now and it's their job to have had this in
hand. Like our high-I.Q. generals and admirals the past 75 years, they're losing another war
for us. The high IQ sorts in finance are another group. We're a nation in serious decline and
from where I sit, the high-IQs are merely managing said decline.
High I.Q.s just don't cut it from where I sit. Could be jealousy. My IQ is some where
between a pineapple and radish, a yam maybe..
@no bat soup for you There is so much talk about Chinese will eat just about anything but
there is usually no focus on other people in the world for doing similar things.
The Chinese eat bamboo rats, the French and Belgiums eat rats too – besides snails.
Some people in Asian countries eat cats and dogs, the Swiss by the thousands, eat cats and
dogs. The members of Explorers' Club in New York eat just about anything as well. But to top
it all, there is even have a cannibal club in LA that specializes in eating human flesh.
Home page: Specializing in the preparation of human meat, Cannibal Club brings the cutting
edge of experimental cuisine to the refined palates of L.A.'s cultural elite. Our master
chefs hail from around the world for the opportunity to practice their craft free of
compromise and unbounded by convention.
Our exclusive clientele includes noted filmmakers, intellectuals, and celebrities who have
embraced the Enlightenment ideals of free expression and rationalism. On event nights,
avant-garde performance artists, celebrated literary figures, and ground-breaking musicians
entertain our guests.
At Cannibal Club, we celebrate artistic excellence as the natural and inevitable expression
of the unbridled human spirit.
Brilliant work I have been researching everything I can find, while placing the totality of
events in the context of US IC/DS ops The "botched biowarfare" attack fits the data the best
by far. Thanks for this report.
Those who praise China's alleged competence in the matter have a dilemma to deal with.
Either the authorities are competent
There is no "dilemma." They detected an outbreak and dealt with it competently. Your
government run by a reality show host didn't. It's as simple as that. You can deflect all you
want, but it really boils down to that.
in which case they effectively waged biological warfare against the rest of the
world
Nothing the Chinese did forced other countries to keep their borders open. Several
countries like Israel closed them before Donald Trump did. Nothing China did forced Trump
into not taking this seriously until it was too late.
"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear," Trump told
attendees at an African American History Month reception in the White House Cabinet Room. The
World Health Organization says the virus has "pandemic potential" and medical experts have
warned it will spread in the US. The President added that "from our shores, you know, it
could get worse before it gets better. Could maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody
really knows."
US 'wasted' months before preparing for coronavirus pandemic
A review of federal purchasing contracts by The Associated Press shows federal agencies
largely waited until mid-March to begin placing bulk orders of N95 respirator masks,
mechanical ventilators and other equipment needed by front-line health care workers.
2 Phylogenetic studies have been done to suggest America was the source of the virus.
This study suggests that Type A strain the earliest type of the SARS-COV2, was mostly
found in the US. While in China it was mostly type B, another strain mutated from Type A. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/07/2004999117
This study suggests there are 2 sources of spread, however in countries from Brazil,
Italy, Australia, Sweden and South Korea , some cases are tie to the US cluster but not to
China. So this suggest some cases were directly spread from the US. Japan commented it was
from the US because they had the virus from traveling to Hawaii and they never went to
China. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.034942v1
here in this video presentation some arguments that supports the US had this virus in
between August 2019 and Jan 2020.
A possible scenario is they developed a few Sars-Cov2 bio-weapon strains the B and C
strains from the A strain. They wanted to find a vaccine for it before they can be deployed,
but in developing the vaccine they leaked the A type out into the US. They had to make a
decision, let the public know about it or cover it up and release the B and C strain without
the vaccine. I think they did the latter.
But you be the judge, we need more transparency from the CDC and more research before any
conclusions can be made.
@dimples Of course I completely failed to mention in the above comment that it's the War
on Terror that's coming to a close. Russia Russia Russia! has been an attempt to fill the gap
but its not going anywhere due to opposition from the Euros.
The slow US reaction to the virus could therefore seen not as incompetence but a
deliberate process of sowing more destruction, thus more China-hate later, ie its part of the
plot. Also the virus is not too deadly, just enough to create a big scare and over-reaction
amongst the authorities and public.
@Mustapha Mond Yes IF there is a conspiracy that would be it. I have also come to this
conclusion in other comments but you have described it much better than myself.
@Christopher Marlowe The flying drones over pig farms is nonsense from Metallicman, who
is a controlled-opp deep asset that speaks 80-90% truth and 10-20% lies.
I tried looking into the flying drones a bit, but couldn't confirm any of it.
@Ayatollah Smith I want to add Trump's early response to the corona virus shows Trumps
and American duplicity. I used to watch a TV show 'Lie to me' with actor Tim Roth. Anyway
people give away all kind of knowledge when they communicate. So my take that Trump's call
that it's like a bad flu or it's nothing to worry about, reveals knowledge that it is
American attack and that he (Trump) worries if it gets 'out' that the trump administration is
culpable, so he tries to downplay corona virus and his own role in it!
"
Who's a seventy years old track record of extreme malfeasance against China ?
Who's a track record of using bioweapons on friends and foe, including its own citizens
?
Who's a track record of committing FF , including many cases against China ?
[TAM, Tibet, Xinjiang, HK, Mh370, INdon genocide 1965,
..]
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Occams Razor .
There's a serial arsonist in town, he has been caught setting fire to John's house dozens
of times in the past few months.
JOhn's house caught fire last night
Who's the first suspect to haul in for interrogation ?
Elementary, Watson.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Last but not least.
Mathematics doesnt cheat
Ian Flaming's fundamental law of prob .
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice ..
How many 'coincidences' occur in the Wuhan caper. ?
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
Conclusion.
Whichever way you look at it,
Logic, Circumstantial evidences and Mathematics all points to We know who.
@swamped The high casualties in the NATO countries are due to their own reluctance to do
anything for so long. Look at the total number that have been infected and the current new
infection rates in South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. South Korea prepared better than
anybody but was cursed with a Christian sect that also had churches in Wuhan. They stayed
close together for a long time in their churches to increase community feeling and, since God
was looking after their health, were reluctant to admit to being ill. Yet South Korea shits
on every NATO country in fighting COVID-19. So do Australia and New Zealand in spite of their
extremely poor use of the 2 months warning provided by China and the DNA sequence of the
virus provided by China on 12th of January, 2020. As soon as the Chinese methods were
applied, the same success with humans was achieved. Now the NATO countries are aping China
too, they are starting to have the same human success. They will continue with success as
long as they continue aping. The Yanks are losers like other NATO members because they didn't
bother to ape until they were heavily infected. I stress that Australia and New Zealand did
very badly (only about 10 times better than the USA but 4 times worse than China who we
should have beaten easily) because they were slow to ape. We only look wonderful when
compared with NATO. Actually, we also do about 5 times better than Iran too. Even with
sanctions crippling their response, Iran has done twice as well as the US losers. When it
becomes a matter of drug and vaccine development where the USA has real strengths, I expect
the USA to do as well as China but it's a low tech battle right now and the Yank boys haven't
done well against the Chinese or Iranian men in that competition. Who would expect them to?
[email protected]
@Godfree Roberts The reasons you enumerate apply to individual people, they don't apply
to governments. It is true that a rational individual should prefer truth because truth is
mostly self-sufficient while lies need to be reasserted permanently. The rationality of truth
vs lies is very much like the rationality of well-designed software vs badly designed
software. Good design as truth demands less maintenance. The problem is that it doesn't keep
programmers busy and it doesn't justify budgets. A government, the "deep state" moreover,
need to keep maintenance costs high to perpetrate themselves.
The crucial question very few seem to be asking is the question of motive. Many commenters
here project on the Chinese their own traits. The problem is that what can be said of Western
elites can't be said of Chinese elites because the Chinese have different motives altogether.
There's one motive they didn't have, to provoke a crisis. Viruses don't hop out of labs by
accident any more than gold hops out of Fort Knox. One has to bring them out and the Chinese
had no reason to do it.
Regarding the US on the other hand, though I disagree with Ron Unz's assertion that this
particular US administration is more reckless and less competent than those that preceded it,
seen from abroad it just appears as less hypocrite, to keep the story short I'll just say
that hubris tends to cloud judgment and that desperate times ask for desperate measures.
Sounds entirely plausible, and, to be parsimonious, even probable. The last element to make
it feasible was leaving Trump entirely out of the loop. He still won't have a clue if he's
standing in the dock at the Hague years from now. Everything he will ever know about this
fiasco will be from light reading material they allow him in his cell.
The Deep State made the right bet when they decided late in the race to hack the election
in favor of the Donald rather than the Queen of Warmongers. Nobody would ever expect the
self-described peace candidate to escalate the ongoing hybrid wars to germ warfare. (Though
maybe the use of chemical weapons by America's proxies in Syria should have been a hint.) Now
the world knows, the Satanists in charge of Washington will stop at nothing.
@Mustapha Mond I 100% agree with you, Mustapha Mond. Much as I admire Ron for in so many
ways for his other topnotch contributions and running this site, one of the very best news
sites IMO, the evidence at hand does not suggest incompetence on the part of the US
government and the deep state behind it: it's definitely an Atlanticist plandemic. Godfree
Roberts showed that many steps the Trump administration took the past two years were meant to
pave the way for enabling the government to play the "we didn't see this coming" card, just
as with 9/11:
At the same time, the US Health Dept was running Crimson Contagion in the first half of
2019, simulating a deadly flu pandemic starting in China (as I recall). Even the US Naval War
College ran a pandemic simulation causing respiratory failure:
Everyone knows about Event 201 at this point, in October 2019, sponsored by the Gates
Foundation, Bloomberg via Johns Hopkins, and the World Economic Forum, simulating
specifically a coronavirus pandemic. What are the odds that the organizers of Event 201 were
just lucky in picking a coronavirus, knowing there are 150 other virus families, besides
coronaviruses (e.g. rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, etc.):
That's a 1/151 chance! Lucky bastards! Present at Event 201 were recycled players involved
in the 9/11 anthrax attack simulation 'Dark Winter', such as Thomas Inglesby, as documented
by Whitney Webb. Not to mention the 2011 movie 'Contagion', involving a flu-like pandemic
originating in China (Hong Kong),transmitted from bats to humans in an unsanitary
environment!!! Another financial reset was also long overdue, as Greg Mannarino and others
have pointed out: the coronavirus cover was too perfect of a tool for deflecting the guilt
from the Fed and the banksters; killing many birds with one stone, the virus is also a 2)
powerful psy-op hurting China's image in the world, 3) further delivering a strong blow to
its export-driven economy; 4) it sets the stage for the cashless society ("dirty bills not
accepted here!"), the advent of digital currencies and 5) top-down surveillance.
So either the China's leadership had suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new
virus as an absolutely deadly national threat, one that needed to be controlled at any
possible cost.
Those are not the only choices, Ron.
Here is another one for you:
– CCP knew this virus had a low fatality rate;
– CCP were aware of recent (DoD iirc) readiness assessments noting that US had
specific vulnerability to a pandemic;
– CCP was aware that the captive Chinese people were alrady subject to 'herd
control' infrastructure whereas the US population still enjoyed human rights;
– CCP decided to sow confusion about the infection. ("We can do this, but their
society will fall apart Comrades!")
– The West initially chose to ignore this. Then the Corporate Press "International"
decided to put psyops pressure to force US and UK to do a 180 u-turn. This due to a single
lousy non-peer-reviewed paper at the Imperial College.
Some other considerations that can inform the above are (a) the attitude of CCP towards
'world government' institutions, and (b) their relationship with WHO, in particular.
So option 3, Mr. Unz:
CCP used the (controlled?) exposure of a virus ("17") to put into motion a psychological
operation to sow confusion and panic in US (based on our own published findings on readiness)
that seems to have other participants in the Globalist crowd institutions. The primary target
was USA, but NATO as well.
Btw, Mr. Unz, that ex-CIA psyops writer you host on your site (Giraldi) keeps censoring my
comments on his propaganda pieces. Why do allow them a platform and also permit them to
censor rebuttals? Hopefully you will prevent UNZ Review from becoming UNZ Pravda.
Ron, you need to rewrite this essay. If minor websites carry articles blaming China the
presumption is these articles are falsifications seeded by Trump, but if wildly
sensationalist Chinese propaganda pieces come from unknown sources like OldMicrobiologist or
Metallicman then they're reliable? Wow is all I can say.
Suggesting Lieber's creds set him above espionage and bio sabotage against the United
States is the best you can do? Your overwrought defense of this man is telling, given his
"assistants" are provably Chinese bio espionage agents and he secretly agreed to take a post
as director of the Wuhan lab.
In the same vein, did you know that the Johns Hopkins' inflammatory "dashboard" world map
seen and used everywhere was developed by a 30-year-old Chinese "student," Ensheng Dong,
working for Johns Hopkins? Using Edward Tufte's "Lie Factor" for evaluating the exaggeration
of a graphical representation relative to the underlying data puts the Johns Hopkins map so
far in the lie category as to warrant an FBI investigation of Johns Hopkins and its employees
for causing irreparable economic and societal harm to the United States. In an NPR puff piece
gushing over the map's creators, "all sitting around a table sipping lattes," Dong is quoted
as saying it's like showing blood everywhere. That's quite accurate from the proud creator
considering the irreparable harm that map has been in large part responsible for
creating.
One correction for the beginning of the article. The 1999 bombing campaign against Yugoslavia
wasn't directed against Bosnian Serbs. That was the 1995 campaign and had nothing to do with
the Chinese Embassy being hit. It seems that you simply got the 1995 NATO bombing of Bosnian
Serbs (entirely in Bosnia) and the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro –
when the Chinese (brand new) embassy was hit) mixed up.
Interesting thing – the Japanese current embassy is on the exact grounds where the
Chinese one used to be. I find some funny symbolism in that.
@Jim Jatras Yep. Unz lost me with that comment. And very sloppy by his high standards.
The NATO 1999 bombings were to support the Albanians in Kosovo – not the Bosnian
muslims. I suggest Ron does some homework on the whole Yugo Wars period. Maybe even back to
ottoman times.
@Anonymous I think that he obviously got the two NATO bombing campaigns mixed up.
NATO bombed Bosnian Serbs (entirely in Bosnia) in 1995 to protect its interests under the
guise of protecting Bosnian muslims. This is what Unz supports.
NATO bombed Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 when the Chinese embassy was hit.
Let's not make the comments spiral off into the Serbia/NATO conflict details. The point of
the entire mention of the bombing is that there is sincere indication that the US hit the
Chinese embassy on purpose. That much was clear since day 1 as the embassy was a brand new
building and you couldn't mistake it for a previous occupant or anything of the sort. It was
a message to China.
@swamped While I don't agree that China would have done this on purpose as I am generally
doubtful of all similar theories, it would nonetheless also explain why China banned all
movement to the rest of China from Wuhan while not only allowing the Wuhan infected to
infiltrate the West but actually vociferously and ubiquitously complaining about Western
racists for thinking about not allowing them in.
I think it was Zero-hedge that said the professor lied about his Chinese funding, making
him in effect an agent of China.
You need to understand the system in place. The book Three Felonies a Day outlines
the how, but does't really cover the why, and there lies the devil in the details. When they
want you, all they have to do is pour over your life' details, and they will find
something nefarious as a tool to put you in stern and squeeze.
There is million different details and forms to fill out when securing foreign funds for a
university; most of the rules and the process is ad hoc, and more often a lot of it is
ignored, and of course – certain countries have certain rules. The good professor
didn't do anything that was completely out of the norm. It's nearly impossible in this
society to be crime free – by design.
Think of all the people near Trump during his Russian Collusion investigation that went to
jail or indicted – most if not all were dragged in on the many petty illegalities that
plague our legal system for a reason. Illegalities that on a normal day most people ignore
until it is politically expedient for the authorities to use them. This is how a Police State operates.
You don't have to believe me; just ask Tommy Chong, Martha Stewart, etc .
Et tu, Brute? You're worried more about the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and Bosnian Muslims
than the destruction of that great Christian Serbia by the Clintons & cabal shame!
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened
In the mid 1990s, I worked with a man of Chinese ancestry in New York named Henry Sun.
Henry had been in Beijing at Tiananmen Square. He had been shot. What happened afterward was
that he was treated by doctors for the bullet wound, and they had coded the illness as some
sort of cancer, so that it would not be obvious that he was a dissident and so be
arrested.
Now, I cannot say that someone was killed. I can say that personal testament to me from a
credible witness indicates bullets were flying, and one struck him. Maybe that's not a
massacre, by whatever means that word is defined. But it wasn't a Chinese tea ceremony.
I am a retired attorney and I am heartened to see that some attorneys, namely David Helm in
Michigan and Lindy Urso in Connecticut ,are beginning to file lawsuits to revoke unlawful and
unconstitutional Executive"Coronavirus" Orders issued by the Governors of the States of
Michigan and Connecticut. I have long maintained that almost every Executive Order issued by
State Governors are revocable as they are based on a lie, promoted by the WHO and the CDC
,that there is a Coronavirus pandemic and an international public health emergency .
everything China have and everything USA has been lost was done with the complicity and
personal gain of 99% of the usa elite,political class,including CIA,etc and even the likes of
Michael Jordan.
Whoever decides to believe this embarrassingly transparent anti-China propaganda is
stupidly siding with Soros and his Global Deep State golems. This will be the latest IQ test
for those who struggled with all the previous ones (incubator babies, Iraqi WMDs, Quaddafi's
Viagra, Hillary's electability, Russiagate etc.).
@Jim Christian High IQ is just an entry level requirement. They have 300,000 folks with
160 IQ, so 140 is not that exceptional.
New recruits' first posting is 5 years in the poorest village in the country. They
'graduate' after they've raised everyone's incomes by 50%. Then the career path gets really
steep.
The people who are visible to us have been so thoroughly scrutinized that it's almost
painful to contemplate. Here's Zhao Bing Bing[1], a mid-level Liaoning[2] Province official
talking about her mid-level, provincial promotion to Daniel Bell:
[MORE]
I was promoted in 2004 through my department's internal competition (30 percent on
written exam results, 30 percent on interviews and public speaking, 30 percent on public
opinion of my work and 10 percent on education, seniority and my current position) and
became the youngest deputy division chief. In 2009, Liaoning Province (pop. 44 million),
announced in the national media an open selection of officials. Sixty candidates met the
qualifications, the top five of whom were invited for further interviews. Based on their
test scores (40 percent) and interview results (60 percent), the top three were then
appraised. The Liaoning Province Organizational Department sent four appraisers who spent a
whole day checking my previous records. Eighty of my colleagues were asked to
vote–more than thirty of whom were asked to talk with the appraisers about my merits
and shortcomings–and they submitted the appraisal result to the provincial Standing
Committee of the CCP for review.
In principle, the person who scored the highest and whose appraisals were not
problematic would be promoted. However, because my university major, work experience and
previous performance were the best fit for the position, I was finally appointed department
chief of the Liaoning Provincial Foreign Affairs Office even though my overall score was
second best [the government discriminates positively in promoting women–ed]. Before
the official appointment there was a seven-day public notice period during which anybody
could report to the organization department concerns about my promotion. I didn't spend any
money during my three promotions; all I did was study and work hard and do my best to be a
good person.
In 2013, thanks to an exchange program, I worked temporarily in the CCP International
Department. The system of temporary exchanges offers opportunities to learn about different
issues in different regions and areas like government sectors and SOEs. In a famous quote
Chairman Mao said, "Once the political lines have been clearly defined the decisive factor
will be the cadres [trained specialists]." So the CCP highly values organizational
construction and the selection and appointment of specialists. There is a special
department managing this work, The Organization Department, established in 1924 and Mao was
its first leader..The department is mainly responsible for the macro management of the
leaders and the staff (team building), including the management system, regulations and
laws, human resource system reforms -- planning, research and direction, as well as
proposing suggestions on the leadership change and the (re)appointment of cadres. In
addition, it has the responsibilities of training and supervising cadres. The cadre
selection criteria are: a person must have 'both ability and moral integrity and the latter
should be prioritized'. The evaluation of moral integrity focuses mostly on loyalty to the
Party, service to the people, self-discipline and integrity. Based on different levels and
positions, the emphases of evaluation are also different. For intermediate and senior
officials, emphasis is on their persistence in faith and ideals, political stance and
coordination with the central Party. High-level cadres are measured against great
politicians and, among them, experience in multiple positions is very important.
Fans follow the careers of one-thousand top politicians online[3] and they are impressive,
as President Donald Trump[4] observed, "Their leaders are much smarter than our leaders. It's
like taking the New England Patriots and Tom Brady and have them play your high school
football team. That's the difference between China's leaders and our leaders".
Today's leaders began their careers in the 1960s as manual laborers in dirt-poor villages
and won promotions by raising village incomes by fifty percent. As they rose, they spent
sabbaticals on the lake-studded campus of The Academy of Governance where they met the
world's leading thinkers, critiqued legislation and earned PhDs. They now run huge provinces,
Fortune 500 corporations, universities, space programs and, of course, government departments
and the Peoples Daily reords their progress under headlines like, "How Rural Poverty Criteria
Affects Mayoral Promotions."

[1] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing, The China Model.
[2] Liaoning (pop. 45 million) is a northeastern Chinese province bordering North Korea and
the Yellow Sea.
[3] The Committee https://macropolo.org/the-committee/
[4] Donald Trump says Tom Brady and the Patriots are just like China. Boston.com . By Steve Silva July 6, 2015
@anon There is on little problem with your hasbara. Those great strategic planners in
China of yours forgot about one little thing that the West has 100% dominance over China in
the soft power of creating global narratives with which it will turn China into a pariah
nation in the eyes of everybody, a nation that everybody hates.
I personally think this was either the result of the so-called "wet-markets" in China
– long known to be the primary source of the annual flu epidemics
I've been going to markets in Asia all my adult life and suddenly they are both the
source of flu epidemics and "wet".
Unless it is raining the second one makes everything seem so ridiculous.
(why the heck haven't they been shut down??)
Because people would starve?
Try throwing some blame(buying food makes you sick!) at your big box corporate food
monopolies and try to shut them down – take a guess at what might happen?
@Tor597 Except, it would be helpful if Ron placed somewhere prominantly on the home page
that he is a card-carrying member of the "Resistance" against Trump, which this article
finally reveals full blast.
Too much attention here on things which could have other explanations and too little
attention on the real puzzles and on those things which science can definitely settle.
(1) It is solvable, and it will be solved, where and when were the first cases of the
infection among the general public outside China. Almost everything else depends on that.
(2) It is almost inconceivable that American agencies who had been plotting this would run it
by Trump for approval first. It seems much more likely that the anonymously sourced report
that our agencies knew about this in November is some kind of ass-covering to shift blame to
Trump, whom these same agencies have been trying to take down for 4 years; which doesn't help
us discern whether they were also responsible for the pathogen in the first place, it's
consistent either way.
(3) The genome has been out there long enough, with no one pointing out inconsistencies that
have held up to scrutiny, that "wild", "escaped from a lab", and "was evolved in a lab" all
look much more likely than "was designed directly by RNA editing".
(4) China's behavior is much more consistent with accidental than with intentional release.
They've obviously lied about the death toll and didn't feel obliged to prevent their people
from traveling abroad, but ordinary Communist wickedness explains that.
(5) Travel between China and Iran and Italy explains the early prevalence there sufficiently,
presuming genomic data we don't yet have will confirm this.
Conclusion: Too early to get locked in to origin theories, the usual suspects are taking
advantage in the same way they would whether or not it was an intentional release. THIS WILL
ALL BE CLARIFIED BY TESTING OF OLD TISSUE SAMPLES so I'm going to wait and see what those
results say. The reports of early COVID outside China have not been confirmed, but come from
researchers WITH REAL NAMES, so it WILL get figured out one way or the other and I'm holding
my fire until then.
P.S. Lieber is clearly a weird loose end that needs to be tied up. Is anyone trying to
interview him?
Let's see. Here in the USA covid hit later, at a time when people have the lowest seasonal
vitamin D (a major immune system hormone, with the population being 90%+ deficient). A
fraction of the population being hit particularly hard has dark skin, further reducing the
vit. D levels. That same fraction is over-represented among those who have metabolic syndrome
(diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and the like), and that is related to all manners of immune
system degradation. Then we have a medical system which looks only for profitable magic
bullets, instead of trying a variety of cheap methods, each of which can increase the
recovery rate by tens of percent.
Finally we have lots and lots of nursing homes, unlike China. And a majority (more than
50%) of deaths comes from those places in Europe. Data from Italy suggests that privately run
nursing homes are correlated with increased mortality, although it could just be extreme air
pollution and/or other environmental factors. Data from Scandinavia suggest that nursing home
size matters too, the smaller the better.
Why should one be surprised that this thing is hitting harder in the West?
R.Unz:"By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most
East Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary,"
Your transparent, never ending shilling for the murderous CCP is becoming more and more
obvious, at least to myself. I'm starting to believe that this site is nothing more than a
thinly disguised Chinese government propaganda outlet.
As in other recent threads, you fully endorse the CCP's criminal actions: lockdowns of
[reportedly] 700 million Chinese citizens; literal lockdowns with citizens locked, even
having their front doors welded shut by the "authorities",for weeks. The idiotic [unless
deliberate], Chinese "solution" has probably already killed 1000's, if not 10's or 100's of
thousands there via starvation alone, and the economic devastation caused in China will
likely kill millions more Chinese in the years to come.
But that is all "exemplary" in your opinion, right? "To make an omelette you have to break
a few eggs", right?
R.Unz:"Everyone knows that America's ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and also extremely
incompetent."
Of course! "Everyone knows" that! [I wish].
What you [and some of them] don't know [or won't admit to themselves] is that this is no
less true of the Chinese government, or of any other government, for that matter.
Reality fact: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft
[taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at
their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply
because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Which means that believing/trusting official stories and figures doled out by competing
criminal power structures, about _anything_, let alone actually supporting/promoting their
idiotic and criminal acts [eg the Chinese, US and elsewhere lockdowns"], is a mugs game for
useful idiots, nothing more. And yet, that is what you continue to consistently indulge
yourself in here.
Thanks for the excellent wrapup, Ron Unz. Your cui bono approach works like a
super-chloroquine dose to zap the anti-China virus now spreading from U.S. legacy media. What
passes for news media here in Europe is no better. But apparently there are islands of sanity
outside the Western imperial heartland. If you read French, you may find it encouraging to
read some real journalism on the source of the carona plandemic here from darkest Africa:
The same mendacious MSM that for three years howled at the moon that Putin had stolen the
2016 election for Trump is now barking like a mad dog about Covid being some kind of 21st
Century version of the Black Death.
Never mind that to get to the current figure of around 42,000 deaths, the CDC has been
juicing the total number of dead by adding in those who died from a heart attack or stroke or
some other medical complication, there was fear to be spread and by G-d, they were doing to
scare the hell out of Americans, just like they did in the years after the Israeli
masterminded 9/11 false flag.
Like Mr. Atzmon has pointed out, the 2017-18 flu season was much deadlier, yet there was
no lock-downs, quarantines and a complete gutting of the US–and the
worlds–economy.
The following may sound like a description of the current Novel Coronavirus pandemic:
"The season began with an increase of illness in November; high activity occurred during
January and February, and then illness continued through the end of March." You guessed
right, this is not the description of the current global Corona pandemic but actually how
CNN described the outbreak of influenza in America in September 2018.
Does it take a genius to figure out that the American 2017-18 influenza outbreak was pretty
'similar' to the current Novel Coronavirus epidemic?
The first question that comes to mind is why didn't America lock itself down amidst
its catastrophic 2017-18 influenza as it has now? One may wonder why the CDC didn't
react to the 'severity' of the outbreak that was at least three times as lethal as the
current Novel Coronavirus health crisis?
The Deep State thugs who are actually in charge of the US have some devious plan in mind
with this Covid hysteria.
Maybe they wanted to see how quickly Americans would give up their Bill of Rights. Or maybe
they wanted to cover up the multi-trillion dollar bailout of those TBTF banks that we bailed
out in 2009?
Or maybe this the test run for their next batch of weaponized flu, the one that will get
many killed and have people lining up for Mr. Know-it-all Bill Gates RFID chipped flu
vaccine.
The actual reason for the bombing was meant to cover-up NATO war crimes that were taking
place almost daily, and the Chinese listening post located in the corner of the embassy
that was bombed were intercepting orders issued by NATO which clearly revealed those
crimes. The Chinese needed to be silenced and their operations ended, no matter the
fallout.
My immediate gut reaction upon seeing the cartoon character version of a Muslim terrorist,
Osama Bin Laden, was this is a fake designed to play on US xenophobia. He was obviously made
for TV audiences.
I assumed after Skripal and the endless Assad gas arracks, that our ruling elite have just
become lazy and couldn't even be bothered to create a plausible story to cover up their
crimes, because the public is so stupid. How long did it take to determine it was a fraud, a
weekend of casual reading?
Putting a mob style hit on Venezuala's President confirmed that they could care less what
the Hoi Poloi think of them.
If this is a US caper, it is the either the most ridicoulosly stupid one imaginable, or
the most well thought out one in a very long time.
I had not connected the intelligence reports (recently spilled out of the Deep State) with
the obvious. Thanks, Ron, for pointing out that it's hard to imagine how the
NSA/CIA/whoever-collecting-part-of-the-85bln-we-spend-on-intelligence could report on this in
November when the sources from which they would have derived that information (the Chinese
government itself) didn't know until December 31st, or shortly before that date when they
reported to the WHO.
Someone, in covering up for blowing the response to the virus, really dropped the
ball.
Scientists from the UK have a recent paper on the mutations of Corona-19.
Here is part of the abstract:
In a phylogenetic network analysis of 160 complete human severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) genomes, we find three central variants distinguished
by amino acid changes, which we have named A, B, and C, with A being the ancestral type
according to the bat outgroup coronavirus. The A and C types are found in significant
proportions outside East Asia, that is, in Europeans and Americans. In contrast, the B type
is the most common type in East Asia, and its ancestral genome appears not to have spread
outside East Asia without first mutating into derived B types, pointing to founder effects
or immunological or environmental resistance against this type outside Asia.
I think these findings throw lots of water on any bioweapon claims. But others may differ
in their opinions.
It definitely does indicate that the virus did not come from a Wuhan lab or the Wuhan wet
market. It originated in Southern China where most people knowledgeable about bat viruses
expect bat viruses to originate.
you are mistakenly assuming and given for granted that this epidemic is much more lethat than
others,that the total closure is beneficial and not harmfull,that is the solution ,you are
deciding who to try to save regardless of the millions of victims of this economic
harakiri,and there are many epidemiologists who disagree with you.
One more thought: The US has over 25 bio-warfare labs that are located next door to Russia
and China that have been called out before for their sloppy or maybe deliberate release of
pathogens.
The WHO too only had high praises for China's transparency and efficiency.
Would that be the same WHO that said chinese disease was not communicable between humans
and that we should keep letting infected people into the country? That's who we should trust?
Or should we trust the communist government that shut down domestic travel to and from Wuhan,
because they were trying to protect the rest of THEIR country, while still allowing
international travel, because they wanted the rest of the planet infected?
This virus may or may not have been engineered, and may have come from the lab or the wet
market. These things are debatable. But what is absolutely not debatable is that once the
virus was loose, China choose to DELIBERATELY infect the rest of the world. These are people
whose numbers we should trust?
1918-1919 "Spanish" Flu Pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Hypotheses_about_the_source
Despite the name the most likely theory is that this pathogen, an H1N1 virus, originated in
China and mutated to become highly lethal in Europe or European-settled countries as a result
of WW I. S
Taking a scientific approach to American deep state biowarfare attack on China's Wuhan
district is telling in so far as Americans literally control tertiary education throughout
the entire world via funding in the trillions.
If the deep state wants to eliminate academics it can do so with merely a phone call to
Law Enforcement branches at a moments notice so that research & hard drives can be
confiscated and destroyed early on in investigations.
Once the media & journalistic propaganda arms of state get hold of the official
talking points to be disseminated the end game zero sum result is usually exactly what the
state arms of propaganda have wanted all along.
To be frank, I am an Intel thinker and am well aware of the details of the CIA led
biowarfare attack on China, but attaining the required data in empirical form via Requests
for Information from government is NOT going to ever yield synthesis required for scientific
peer-review research.
Bottom line is that the CIA had one CIA Agent/Operative deploy the nCov-19 in late October
as the USA Military contingent was departing Wuhan district. The operative deployed the
bioweapon via glass ampule smashed onto the ground to the entrance way for the Wuhan
restaurant district near to the Wuhan Wet Market. Moreover, his CIA handler gave him the
protocol & instruction on deployment of the bioweapon back in the United States of
America long before the actual deployment.
Lastly, Fort Detrick scientists developed the Chimera super-spreading viral pathogenicity
with a herd of pigs in the USA before hand in around 2012. Logistics of setting up the Wuhan
BSL-4 laboratory scientists for the false flag event of biowarfare were dependent upon
academic arrests before hand so that deflection & impression management for governance
would clearly be able to utilize plausible deniability where required.
In sum, as one acutely aware of the bioterrorism that the United States of America has
unleashed on the world covertly I, for one, can assure all that the US Deep State knowingly
unleashed nCov-19 to undermine China's meteoric rise in the financial world due to America's
incompetence writ large across the board since the Great Financial Crisis revealed that
America is swimming naked and their Emperor is wearing no clothes to reveal his
infinitesimally small Johnson in contradistinction to President Johnson's Johnson which was
historically infamous.
P.S. The USA Deep State can get in line to lick my balls in deference to my superior
intellect.
First, can researchers take a look at this virus and determine with certainty whether it was
artificially concocted in a lab or if it simply evolved out in the open? If so then that
would help focus the discussion. If not then things will remain opaque.
The Iranian government outbreak is strange but then people congregating with each other, like
at ski resorts, pass it to each other. If it was a US biowarfare attack then how did US
agents get access to them? They wouldn't have the cover of some delegation to an event such
as military games. But what was the effect on Iran? Zero. Some top leaders got sick and some
older members died. They have replacements and the government continues without missing a
beat. This idea that an ideal bioweapon would be highly contagious with a low lethal rate so
as to tie up resources and halt the economy sounds good but in practice it's hardly more than
harassment. It slowed up the Chinese economy but that's a temporary blip and they're back
now. The US and other countries are hardest hit economically. Many businesses will never
recover. This is self-inflicted. The lethality of this virus looks to be increasingly lower
and lower each time one looks despite all the Chicken Littles who were screaming that the sky
was about to fall. Was there a purpose for that?
The Wuhan outbreak coincided with the military games but things happen at random times as it
is. People were crowded in there. The various plagues and viruses have been going from East
to West for a very long time now. The problem is that currently there are many who have an
interest in lying and misdirecting things which further muddy the waters.
@Emslander What is crazy and funny is that supposed trump supporters thinks China would
shrink it's economy by 6.8% for the first quarter of 2020 to help Trump's opposition.
The same supposed supporters don't even realized that the best way for trump to win the
next election is to stamp out this damn virus asap. Denying is not going to work. Testing n
quarantine combo is what would work. It is why trump changed his tune.
Who's a track record of extreme malfeasance against China, since ww2 ?
1950 Korean war,
1959 Tibet,
1962 Indo./sino war,
1965 [[[CIA/MI5]]] INdon genocide on ethnic Chinese.
1989 TAM,
1998 Indon pogrom , mass rapes on ethnic Chinese
1999 BOmbing of Chinese embassy in ex Yugo,
2001 Hainan spy plane, Chinese pilot died.
2003 SARS1,
2008 Tibet riots,
2009 Xinjiang bloodbath,
2013 Bird flu H7N9 , Asia pivot
2014 Xinjiang, HK, Mh370, bubonic plague, Ebola, Dengue,
2018 bird flu, H7N9
2019 HK, Xinjiang, swine flu, army worms,
2020 SARS2, H5N1, locusts .
And there were also the proxy-war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis: the latter at
minimum a fallout of US-Israeli wars in the Middle East and the Zionist assault against
Libya; yet not unlikely itself a direct assault against Europe. And not only Willy Wimmer,
closest adviser to our old chancellor Helmut Kohl, strongly suspected as much already back
in 2015.
Thanks for that context. It is exactly what I am trying to call attention to the whole
time. Regardless, how much reality there is to Corona, my issue is the overall timing in the
geopolitical context, with Europe being torn apart between the Angloamericans and China /
Russia on the other side. That was the agenda anyway, so how is it possible that this threat
appears at this very moment?
It can be said that had Corona not happened, the powers to be would have needed to invent
it.
Else, in skimming the comments, I find that until now (with some 140 comments) there are
hardly any discussions, but everyone pushing their own narratives.
Mabe, it is possible to get away from the question, how and if Corona is deadly to the
context that is developing. I have to admit that I did not take Corona serious enough from
the start, not as an illness, but as a fundamental threat to our societies. In that sense, it
is indeed a war.
@hs4691506 There was also some evidence that Chinese researchers under his supervision
had smuggled samples of his work out of their labs and back to China. Chinese researchers,
working in the USA and Canada, have a history of smuggling viral and other lab samples back
ti China. It's part of a much larger pattern of Chinese espionage and intellectual theft.
A search on DuckDuckGo.Com using the
following search string, "chinese scientists smuggling viral samples", turns up a lot of
useful information on smuggling of viral and other biological samples. (I no longer trust
Google. DuckDuckGo is less censored and does not track its users)
Similar searches using the strings "chinese intellectual theft" and "chinese scientific
espionage" will provide a broader picture.
BTW, I believe that Israel and the USA have both been conducting research into potential
bio-weapons. I would not be surprised if the Chinese got a leg up on such research by
espionage targeting both countries. Of the three, the USA's research is probably the most
benign/least vicious. I suspect that the Israelis have been ruthlessly researching and
developing biological weapons, just as they did nuclear and chemical weapons. The Chinese
have probably been doing bio-weapons research just as ruthlessly. The biggest concern with
the Chinese is that, compared against Israel and the USA, their lab safety, security and
containment procedures are lax to an obscenely dangerous degree. One can only hope that after
the Wuhan outbreak, this attitude, if not the Chinese bio-weapons research, will change.
This is a model opening argument for an ICC bill of indictment against the CIA command
structure. The bird's-eye view is exactly right – all of CIA's gravest crimes have been
most evident not at the detailed technical level but at the organizational level. CIA can
shred all the MIPRs and RFPs and after-action reports they want, but the proof of all CIA
crime is public information about the actions of CIA focal points in government.
(Incidentally, one example you don't mention is official obstruction, including CDC, of Helen
Chu's coronavirus testing. That would have shown that COVID-19 was far too widespread for a
single introduction from Wuhan. Another example is the series of airport clusterfucks that
muddled US haplotypes when Chinese researchers noted that they point to US origins.)
The presumption of incompetence probably has its own CIA memo analogous to 1035-960. If
they can get you to tacitly assume that CIA works in the national interest, but ineptly, then
you misinterpret everything. CIA is a criminal enterprise with ongoing profit centers that
fund opportunistic crimes from asset-stripping to aggression.
When you're using a banned biological weapon, domestic casualties confer important
benefits:
First, damage to the US can help obfuscate attribution. Philip Giraldi articulates that
line in its clearest form, Why would the government shoot itself in the foot like that?
Second, US contagion offers a pretext for domestic repression: house arrest; overt contact
chaining illegally undertaken by NSA for decades; forcible derogation of your rights of
assembly and association.
Third, US economic devastation is used as a pretext for looting the fisc on an
unprecedented scale. Blackrock now performs central planning on behalf of the Fed, forcing
the state to guarantee a overwhelming volume of worthless and fraudulent securities.
Illegal warfare that is difficult to attribute has one intractable problem. It's a sneak
attack in breach of the Hague Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities. That
convention was the legal justification for the first use of nuclear weapons. So if Russia and
China nuke the beltway into a sinkhole of molten basalt, that's only fair.
If it is established that COVID-19 is a banned biological weapon, this is self-evidently
the gravest crime in world history. The attack manifestly constituted aggression with an
absolutely indiscriminate weapon. It defies considerations of proportionality with unknown
global effects. The Nazi regime was extirpated for much less.
The evidence is very close to probative, and mounting.
There is the question of natural vs artificial origin of the novel corona virus, and from my
layman's research and considerations it seems increasingly that an artificial origin is
extremely likely. The pertinent technology is now widely available, there has been a massive
ongoing effort in the field since the 2nd WW, and many researchers and knowledgeable people
are drawing the conclusion of likely artificial origin: So, for example, George Webb's work,
or the Czech scientist Dr.Sona Pekova, PhD, who near the end of the video linked to describes
the virus in such a way as to indicate a great likelihood of artificial creation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmL7okhbVzU&feature=youtu.be
There are many possible perpetrators. And a few likely suspects.
The ultimate health implications of the new virus are impossible to say with certainty at
this point: For example, Paul Craig Roberts' website's latest title is "Bad News From the
Virus if Correct", with the point being that there are now known to be a lot of different
strains with presumably different potential for harm, but there may be many more not
recognized.
There are additional contextual considerations that will have consequences which are
anyone's guess. So for example, last year saw many widespread agricultural catastrophes and
difficulties which were usually weather related. If the weather continues to be
uncooperative, in conjunction with food production and transportation problems related to the
virus, in conjunction with the African Swine Flu disaster, then human health and food
security, and thus health, on a large scale may be affected.
Another contextual consideration is the recent rapid and accelerating deployment of 5G
technology, which many are concerned can make life more vulnerable to health problems. It may
just be coincidental, but worth noting, that tiny San Marino, enclosed by Italy, boasted of
being the European leader in the rollout of 5G technology, and is now the world leader in
corona virus deaths per million, by a long shot (San Marino with 1179 deaths per million as
of today compared to second place Spain with 455 per million, and yes, Spain has been among
the most ambitious countries in rolling out 5G in many cities. And Wuhan was the very poster
'child' of 5G. Just saying.)
Shutting down the world economy seems rather dire. But it may just be the impetus for a
radical rethink of the basic structure and design of the global economic system.
The global paradigm which in economic terms might be described as globalism, or 'when
private corporations rule the world', or neo-liberalism, or plutocracy running amuck, or
grasping for 'global government', or the aftermath of the chimera of 'full spectrum
domination', or in the wreckage of Rockefeller's and Kissinger's et al wet dream, or
democracy spurned, is now inescapably obviously retarded, dysfunctional: a fundamental design
flaw if you want humanity and Earth to thrive. In short, the culture of deception.
Someone has suggested as symptomatic of our present predicament a cartoon featuring Fauci
with his bio-weapon declaring this as 'the age of the Ork', with crazed Bill Gates as Gollum
wielding a syringe and gleefully chortling 'my precious!'.
The local, one's back yard, the decentralized, the careful common sense community, the
regional, and the actually democratic national, with the public interest protected by the
public, and much honest discourse, as one basic design alternative.
Useful article by Unz which connects the dots well. One important dot which is missing,
though, in his analysis of the psywar promoting propaganda that the virus leaked out of a lab
in Wuhan, and is a Chinese biowarfare agent, is that this psywar originated with an israeli
military-intelligence operative. One dany shoham. This individual was also deeply involved in
the "iraq has wmds" psywar operation at the beginning of the century. More on that dot and
how it connects to the others, later.
A few days ago I wrote this about how the israeloamericans are framing their psywar
campaign against China:
The israeloamericans are working on a several level strategy which includes back-ups in my
opinion. The israeloamericans are trying to cover all the bases at once.
So they claim China created the virus in a lab, in case it gets out it was lab created,
meaning israel or the usa created it in a lab. The israeloamericans claim the virus leaked
out of the Wuhan lab in case evidence is found that israeloamerica deliberately planted the
virus in Wuhan or it spread from a source in the usa through some other vector. The
israeloamericans claim China mislead the world about the virus so people wont notice the
reality that China has successfully thwarted the virus, while trump & co. have continued
making it worse. The claptrap about China under reporting victims is a variation of the
latter tactic. And so on.
Is what is being reported in the following article "damage control"?
Neither 'lab' nor 'wet market'? Covid-19 outbreak started months EARLIER and NOT in Wuhan,
ongoing Cambridge study indicates
Another vector in the israeloamerican preemptive strategy? Now that research is showing
the virus may have been infecting people earlier and neither a market in Wuhan, or even Wuhan
itself, may be where it originated?
With regard to western response to the pandemic, especially american, the delay in
israel's trump colonial regime's containment response to the virus tells me they deliberately
wanted the virus to spread across the country and cause the ruckus it is now causing. The
question is why israel had them do this.*
* Compare the israeli response, IE: strong proactive containment strategy, to the weak
responses in most zionazi colonies. It is clear there is an actual strategy underlying this
difference. And it entails more than israel being sacrosanct.
Keep in mind that trump, and his corrupt regime, are israel's property. More specifically,
they tepresent the israeli likud freakshow (netanyahoo and related subhuman garbage). Most of
what trump says and the policies his regime follow, originate from tel aviv. Trump's cowardly
"blame China" campaign, duplicated by the zionazi western media (commonly misnamed the msm)
is israeli psywar.
@onebornfree See my post at 135 regarding three different variants: A, B and C. The most
prevalent in Asia is B and the most prevalent variants in Europe and the US are A and C. So
it could also be that A and C variants are more virulent than B.
"By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most East
Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while that of many Western countries has been
equally disastrous. Maintaining reasonable public health has been a basic function of
governments since the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total
incompetence of America and most of its European vassals has been breathtaking. If the
Western media attempts to pretend otherwise, it will permanently forfeit whatever remaining
international credibility it still possesses."
So saying, Ron Unz forfeits whatever credibility he might have retained by now
acknowledging the data emerged from "the fog of war" he found himself pronouncing in a month
or more ago.
Like Unz, and after examining the relevant Chinese data, epidemiologists Knut Wittkowski(
almost a month ago) saluted the Asian approach to handling the novel virus threat.
Unlike Unz, Wittkowski revealed that what was salutary was the Chinese government's
allowing the populace to gain herd immunity before instituting any lockdown measures.
(rendering the lockdown measures a mystery from a scientific point of view).
So, and according to Wittkowski- a man with credentials relevant to this story, yet
completely ignored by Unz' investigative article- the incompetence of Western governments
cited by Unz is the clean reverse of what he claims: it is the incompetence of ignoring what
the competent Chinese did not ignore, namely, the sound scientific counsel to allow the virus
to spread, granting the herd immunity to the populace which protects the elderly and fragile
self-quarantining until that immunity is gained.
1) Virus is US bioweapon attack on China
2) Virus is China's own bioweapon accident
3) Virus happened in nature, and everybody is trying to profit off the crisis or
contain/direct the damage to their own interests.
That's 66% percent chance it's an accident.
Government in power were sane enough to avoid nuclear war as recently as 40 years ago. Why
would they be crazier today? Biowarfare is Mutually Assured Destruction, too. If people can
model this away, please provide a link.
@swamped You are cognitively blind to the obvious -- the ZUSA has become ZUSSR (minus
excellent Soviet educational system). Before lamenting "Chinese despots" and "their contempt
for civil liberties," think for a moment about the fate of Assange (why he is in a
high-security prison?) and about the Banksters on the march (the financialization of the US
economy).
What is the state of "liberties" in the US and the UK? -- Gay parades. Quantitative
Easings for eternity.
Why some 1000 American military bases encircle the globe? Why 25 American biofare
laboratories reside in Europe? You are cheerleading for Cheneys and Rubins (read General
Smedley Butler). https://fas.org/man/smedley.htm http://armswatch.com/the-pentagon-bio-weapons/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk_
Libya used to be a prosperous state with universal healthcare and excellent educational
opportunities. Enter the "non-totalitarian" and "non-despotic" deciders to bring in
"liberties." First, the US/NATO expropriated Libyan gold, and then a regular business of
"liberation" took place: since the "non-totalitarian" and "non-despotic" liberators entered
Libya, a civil war commenced, the healthcare and educational systems have collapsed and slave
markets sprang.
Or perhaps you are proud of freedom of information in the US?
This important story was immediately summarized in many of the world's other most
prestigious publications, but encountered an absolute wall of silence in our own
country.
How much trillions have been disappeared by the Pentagon? -- 21 (twenty-one). A lot
of money that could be used for initiating great national projects of all kinds.
Why the US industries have been relocated to China? -- Because this is what US corporations
demanded and got. What deciders want, they get. Read General Smedley Butler, again.
For many weeks President Trump and his political allies had regularly dismissed or
minimized this terrible health threat, and suddenly now faced with such a manifest
disaster, they have naturally begun seeking other culprits to blame.
I'm a little worried about The Unz Review. This pandemic is already being used to consolidate
the economy and The Powers That Be are likely to use it to settle scores and purge
dissident voices.
TruthDig is down and other media is likely to go down soon as ad revenue collapses. I
would have advised ad revenue from foreign sources like Aeroflot (and others outside the U.S.
Oligarchy), but airlines are collapsing and international travel is likely to be down for a
while.
Maybe just open a Patreon Account and put a link in the sidebar.
It may be a good time to be extra cautious and gird your loins as they say.
Whatever anyone may make of Unz's assessment, I think everyone not insane or evil or
mindlessly jingoistic should agree with this: "Everyone knows that America's ruling elites
are criminal, crazy, and also extremely incompetent."
By the way – I hope Unz has changed his mind about the bombing of Serbia. Anytime
Neocons assert the need to use violence to help Moslems, the reasonable man smells not a rat,
but a million putrid rats.
I would not be surprised if the Chinese got a leg up on such research by espionage
targeting both countries. [SIC]
Of the three, the USA's research is probably the most benign/least vicious [
SIC ]
ROFLAMO
How fucking old are you kid ?
Back to your Harry Potter forchrissake
This is an adult site.
Do you want me to inform your mom ?
@Tor597 Correct. The Elites of the Anglo-Zionist Empire will get richer from all this,
while the white American middle and working classes will get poorer.
Much the same will happen in the UK and France and other European nations.
This and many other analyses focus primarily on governments, USA government, Chinese
communistic government etc. and their past misadventures as proofs for their involvement or
not involvement in the current disaster. I would like to see at least one extensive analyse
of possible involvement of the nongovernment governments. Their interests and gains from this
situation. Regards!
@denk Not the "war crimes" bit again. Look, the whole operation was one big war crime,
and that according to the US Secretary of State. Same with Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq --
overthrow of another state for no compelling reason. So what? War is war, and China can
either participate or not. If it participate, it can expect to become part of the general
destruction.
Analogy -- if somebody is in your house and gets violent, that's a crime. You are legally
able to protect yourself. If the person starts to run, you can't shoot she/he/it because
she/he/it is no longer a threat. Sure, the other she/he/it started the crime, but that
doesn't mean you can commit a crime of your own (shooting somebody when she/he/it isn't an
immediate threat). Should she/he/it turn around and start returning fire, well, it just might
be that she/he/it is legally doing so.
So enough of this "you stepped on a crack and so you've transgressed the law in one
particular, so you are absolutely condemned" stuff. You want to play that game, people get
tired of it, and it has a bad endgame. Try playing it on COVID-19. COVID-19 might listen to
you and depart. Go, use your moral authority and save us all.
Since the Israeli masterminded 9/11 false flag, the MSM has told us a gazillion lies about
what DID NOT happen that day.
When those lies started losing luster, we were told Bin Laden was killed, but they offered no
proof, other than "Trust Us.'
Then we started getting lies about ISIS, DAESH, al Nusra etc, that they were even worse
than al CIA Duh, when in fact, they were started, funded, paid, protected and give air cover
by the US/Israel and the Kingdom of Head Choppers.
Now the same MSM is braying that Covid will be the end of the world, unless we give up our
freedoms?
Bull. We're being lied to again and the sad part is, many are falling for this latest line
of horse apples.
In Coronavirus We Trust: Medical Surveillance State For A Gov That's Experimented On
You 239 Times
When are people going to realize that the mandatory vaccine is ready NOW – Gates,
Fauci, Davos, the oligarchs, and the usual suspects just needed to lay the groundwork. It's
ready to go now. Doesn't take much of a gedanken experiment to see the end-game here.
@utu "Yes, what if the chief objective was not to hurt China by disrupting its society
and economy but to make the whole world angry with China."
If the planning was like 9/11, then both of these objectives would have been carefully
scrutinized and maximized.
Bear in mind something, please: who says these bastards are finished unleashing designer
bugs?
Would it not be wisest for these evil geniuses to keep the bugs coming, intensifying the
impact so that the continuously simmering anger of the increasingly desperate masses can be
directed to boil over at the Chinese menace when the 'elites' deem it necessary and proper.
And with exploding unemployment numbers, especially among the young, and no real short term
job or career prospects, these psychopathic 'elites' have a ready-made source for boots on
the ground, should that be mandated.
Of course, I hope all this turns out to not be the case. But if 9/11 was any indication,
these bastards will be brazen and shamelessly murderous.
@Max Powers When you said that Ron Unz lost you with his defense of NATO in the
unnecessary Serbian war, I hope that you read the rest of the article rather than stopping
there. I, too, smelled a Bill Clinton obfuscation at the time, as I always do when any US
president sends our troops to war. I'm a little surprised that Mr. Unz didn't.
However, I respect his honesty, and he more than redeemed himself in the rest of his
well-researched and well-written article. It did much to bolster my belief that the
CIA/Neocons are behind it. Although, discounting the unfairly derided Beltway outsider Mr.
Trump, I've never considered the likes of such people as West Point grad SOS Pompeo as being
incompetent. To paraphrase the former CIA head: "we lie, we cheat, we steal."
But America and several European countries avoiding adopting these same early measures
such as widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have paid a terrible price
for their insouciance.
For someone ordinarily quite careful in your use of terminology, you conflate the term
quarantine with lockdown. This is usually being done these days in the media to make a
lockdown seem less unreasonable to the insouciant public. Properly a quarantine is the
isolation of the sick to prevent the spread of contagion to the healthy public. What we have
are lockdowns, restricting the free movement of the healthy population. These have been
resorted to out of the desire "to do something," but unfortunately as you must know, there is
absolutely no empirical evidence that lockdowns do any good when all is said and done, and
they do considerable economic harm. Sweden used a relaxed social distancing approach without
a lockdown, and their mortality rate is currently less than that of most countries that
resorting to this authoritarian approach.
@Quintus "Another financial reset was also long overdue, as Greg Mannarino and others
have pointed out: the coronavirus cover was too perfect of a tool for deflecting the guilt
from the Fed and the banksters; killing many birds with one stone, the virus is also a 2)
powerful psy-op hurting China's image in the world, 3) further delivering a strong blow to
its export-driven economy; 4) it sets the stage for the cashless society ("dirty bills not
accepted here!"), the advent of digital currencies and 5) top-down surveillance."
Exactly!
This planned-demic is like a Timex watch for the PTB: the gift that keeps on giving.
You are spot-on when you say that digital currencies and top-down surveillance will be
enabled by this oh-so-convenient viral pandemic.
Like I said, it's a neoliberal zionist-neocon elitist's wet dream come true, maybe even
more than 9/11 was.
I guess we all get to watch, wait and see what happens next .
One thing I have been waiting for is confirmation that HIV is somehow involved in the virus,
making it a chimera and tipping the scale towards bioweapon.
@anon If Trump was in on it, he didn't do much of a job making himself a hero, several
missteps are noticeable in the view of 20/20 hindsight, even if he intentionally wanted to
crash the economy he would have scripted it better.
@MLK Unz.com seems to be less a blog than an online asylum; Ron and most of the
KrazyKommentariat have really flipped their tinfoil Trilbys this time. This site is worse
than Infowars is reputed to be–yet utterly without the entertainment value. You wonder
why Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer and Bertie Woostershire continue to post on this site. And,
yes, why I bother to comment.
@Tor597 "Zerohedge used to be libertarian and antiestablishment but something changed and
they are now right wing neocons."
Their true colors are emerging for all to see.
I recognized early on what exactly Zerohedge was about: sayanim-directed, intelligently
controlled opposition. Very intelligently controlled, I should say.
Or as I call it, "Zio-hedge".
The trick is to give lots of good analysis and establish credibility, and then on the
absolutely critical issues, subtly reinforce the neocon narrative. Then, slowly over time,
not so subtly. Then, when the moment is ripe, openly and strongly support the neocon
narrative. Again, a very intelligent and effective technique.
Sadly, we are now at the point of "openly" reinforcing the neocon narrative ..
Ron,
Your article is very good! Thank you for shedding some light on this issue
I would like to summarize a rebuttal to some of the points expressed in this article
However, your chart depicting America and China economic trends is statistically
misleading
America started from a much higher bar than China, and it is harder for richer countries
to grow. Furthermore, an additional dollar in per capita GDP for America is a less % growth
than it would be for China.
Here is the GDP per capita growth from the World Bank for America vs China.
Hardly, what your graph shows at all. In fact, this shows America adding more in Per
capita GDP in real terms than China over the last thirty years.
It seems the issue is that you are thinking that China's exponential growth will continue
till the point where it strongly surpasses the USA, like the Coronavirus's growth, but
countries don't work like that. Unless you want to believe there was some policy reason for
why Japan went from 10% to 1% growth in ten years.
Second, with respect to the domestic impoverishment of America, I think you are mistaken
here. Most of those who are impoverished in America are immigrants and Black people, one
group because of their recent arrival and location in America's most expensive cities. The
other group because of their lack of time preference, so they don't save.
Additionally, How did China identify the virus so quickly? It is fairly hard to tell, even
from those who died. According your own article, China shut down when they had 11 deaths, and
sequenced the genome when they had even less. That has never happened before, and I feel that
is suspicious to me. The offical Chinese narrative is that the Wuhan Goverment dropped the
ball, so how did they catch the disease so early?
An article by Mr. Unz is always worth the wait and then the read, no matter if I agree a
100%, 60%, or even just 20% with what has been written.
A real delight, and a sort of Christmasy feeling. Which is a very important psychological
boost for the likes of me in such weird, weird times. Thanks!
The Winnipeg lab lead scientist, a Dr Plummer, dropped dead in Nigeria in early March.
He more than likely added the HIV 1 content to the Wu V to allow it to spread since he had
the MERS variant from 2014 on.
His lab then had Wuhan Scientists escorted out by RCMP last summer.
No info as to why was offered, and Plummer was buddies with the Harvard prof, and both were
recipients of Epstien the rapists financial support.
Ron always goes to the edge, but never ever steps off!!
Epstein should be brought up, he gave many millions to the Harvard and MIT people for virus
development!! Cui bono Ron, cui bono, by deception, make war!!!
Not sure what to make of Mr. Unz's piece here -- there's a lot of room for any number of
suspects to emerge as the guilty party here
One of the earliest questions I had was just how did this virus get into Iran -- which
naturally begs the question of who has the most visible and ongoing hatred of Iran -- other
than israel -- and their stooge, the United States.
The Newsweek article cited here about the class action lawsuits even mentions one of the
plaintiff attorneys: "But Klayman claimed he has "whistleblowers with firsthand knowledge" of
China's involvement in the viral outbreak who are currently residing in Israel and the United
States and who can help substantiate this charge." So just who is it among 'whistleblowers'
that reside in israel and in the United States (likely dual citizenship folks) -- other than
israeli nationals?
And, from this article: "But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the
global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit,
with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least a dozen of its
officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior.
" Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant
human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant
outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have
America assassinating Iran's top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks
later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly
new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual
possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?"
Even allowing for Iran's involvement by the chinese in its BRI -- how can anyone explain
the virus so quickly targeting the elites in Iran's ruling class -- certainly they don't hang
around with the chinese in Iran or elsewhere, do they?
@Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist Your list is too small. I laugh at these comments
regarding China's lies and crimes. Americans are surely the most gullible people on the
planet. They know their corrupt government steals and lies to them daily yet they can still
be manipulated to jump on the bandwagon of blame and hate towards anyone at anytime with a
few inciteful articles from the media.
let me add to your list [MORE]
MLK
JFK
Ruby
USS Liberty
911
Venezuela
Honduras
Haiiti
Hiroshima
Vietnam
Syria
Palestine
Russia
Ukraine
Libya
Epstein
Afghanistan
32 Trillion dollars missing from the pentagone
All Presidential Elections
Hiding their own crimes against humanity, their government drug trade/sex trade/ chemical
and biowarfare against poor countries.
The US of Israel so exceptional.
@Mustapha Mond Agreed . Like 9/11 there is plenty of evidence in the predictive
programming/revelation of the method/social conditioning that the Coronavirus pandemic was
many years in the making see, for example : "WTF? Olympic Opening Ceremony 2012-NHS" YouTube
. Yes, the London 2012 Olympic Games opening ceremony revealed part of the plot of the
Coronavirus plandemic. I was expecting that something like this was going to happen ,but
figured the cabal/cult/globalists/freemasons wouldn't try to pull it off until Americans were
disarmed but , when you have total control of the media , it is easy to create hysteria and
brainwash the public into believing that the Coronavirus, which is probably no more than the
flu ,is the plague and will wipeout mankind unless everyone is locked-down . As another
commenter has noted ,they probably could not have pulled off the international Coronavirus
psyop 10 to 20 years ago because they did not have control and ownership of the worldwide
massmedia . septemberclues.info
has a good, short essay on "The central role of the news media on 9/11." Unless you stop
relying on news from NPR, MSNBC, New York Times , Washington Post, Fox News , CBS , NBC
,etc,etc you will remain brainwashed and unable to understand that we are living through a
planned-demic with a frightening agenda .
@anon "Please do not comment on things you clearly don't understand. It is estimated that
no more than a few percent of the American population has been exposed to Sars2 (Covid-19)."
The key word is "estimated". No one knows (not even you) the actual number of exposed
Americans to the Wuhan virus. There have been some small random samples done by
Dr.Bhattacharya that indicate that there is actually a large number of Americans that have
been infected but are asymptomatic and that the final mortality rate will be closer to the
annual flu or 0.1% to 0.2% instead of the guesstimate of 3%. The early studies are too small
to think they are representative of the nation but the results indicate that larger studies
are necessary in order to support nationwide policies, which are currently being made on
hunches not science. About 60,000 to 80,000 died of the flu during the 2017 season when
vaccines were available, so a large number of deaths during the flu season are not unusual
and never required closing down the economy.
[MORE]
Gov. Cuomo was screaming at the top of his lungs that he needed tens of thousands of
ventilators, thousands are now sitting in his warehouses unused. So much for estimates. Most
of the early estimates were wrong by exaggerating the death rate, which turned out to be only
a guess rather than based upon science.
The CDC has been derelict in its duties over the years and has been giving poor advice.
There are other experts in the field that have alternative views that are being ignored or
dismissed and should at least be considered.
@Ayatollah Smith I have been reading much about Covid-19, but am waiting for anyone, in
or out of government, trying to blame China and/or exonerate Uncle Sam to deal with a
particular point that anyone can easily appreciate using only a timeline:
The US needs to answer this question: HOW could US 'intelligence sources' possibly have
known in November – or even October – of a potential pandemic of COVID-19 that
would erupt – specifically in Wuhan – two months later? (Or that was already
erupting in Wuhan at the time, unbeknownst to the Chinese?). I believe the entire world
would demand the answer to this.
So far, nothing. No refutation, no rationalization, just silence. Like WTC-7, is this
Achilles' heel from which the Establishment can only limp away?
I don't know who, what, when, where, or why this infection(s) began. But I'm certain that
anyone dodging that particular question wants me not to.
In 2016, when I finally cancelled by NYT subscription, I was asked why I was doing so. I
explained that I didn't like having my intelligence systematically insulted.
Like, I think, most UR readers, I'm game for pretty much anything as a general
proposition.
But poor Ron couldn't make it more than 100 words into a droning 7,400 words with
discrediting himself.
When CIA whacked JFK, the whole world outside the US iron curtain knew, but too bad. When CIA
blew up OKC, the whole world knew, but hey, it's their business. When CIA knocked down the
WTC, on the second try, and blew up the Pentagon a bit to start a war, the whole world knew,
but Russia was tits-up, unable to do anything about it.
This is different. CIA's illegal germ warfare is a maleficium, in legal doctrine going
back to Grotius. CIA wronged the whole world, and the whole world has a joint obligation to
hold CIA responsible. Russia and China made a missile gap for real, so now they can do
it.
This is war. This is the very beginning of the world war that will end the CIA regime:
@Anon One problem with the chart that can be fixed to make it more representative is that
the two countries should start from the same base of comparison. If you use two different
bases, then you get the wrong comparison.
For instance, if you measured the US from China's base in 1980, the US added 40k in per
capita gdp in the 40 years, reflecting a 4000% increase from China base in contrast to the
1400% increase that China had.
If you use the same base, then America is what looks like a superior country.
@antitermite Unbelievable. A truly gifted researcher destroyed on the totally idiotic
charges:
Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in nanoscience and
nanotechnology. In 2011, Lieber was named by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the
world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications. He is
known for his contributions to the synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale
materials and nanodevices, the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a
mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience.
Awards:
Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (2001)
MRS [Material Research Society] Medal (2002)
ACS Award in the Chemistry of Materials (2004)
NBIC Research Excellence Award in Nanotechnology, University of Pennsylvania (2007)
Inorganic Nanoscience Award, ACS Division of Inorganic Chemistry (2009)
Fred Kavli Distinguished Lectureship in Nanoscience, Materials Research Society (2010)
Wolf Prize in Chemistry (2012)
Nano Research Award, Tsinghua University Press/Springer (2013)
IEEE Nanotechnology Pioneer Award (2013)
Willard Gibbs Medal Award (2013)
MRS Von Hippel Award (2016)
Remsen Award (2016)
NIH Director's Pioneer Award (2017 and 2008)
John Gamble Kirkwood Award, Yale University (2018)
Welch Award in Chemistry (2019)
On January 28, 2020, Lieber was arrested on charges of making false statements to the
U.S. Department of Defense and to Harvard investigators regarding his participation in
China's Thousand Talents Program According to the Department of Justice's charging
document, there are two counts of alleged crime committed by Lieber. The DOJ
believes Lieber's statement was false
The only way "the US government did it" makes sense is if this was happening this coming
November after Trump has been reelected. If the Deep State did it without Trump's approval,
somebody will talk just like John Soloman claims FBI agents told him of the Russiagate
conspiracy at the FBI while it was getting underway. Somebody would have alerted somebody
loyal to Trump what was being planned. Remember Trump had to give the order to kill that
Iranian general. The Deep State (full of Israel's toadies) didn't even do that on their own.
Of course, there is an answer for everything. It even makes more sense for Trump to do it
now so he can fix it. The Deep State did it but Trump now has to cover for them or risk the
world finding out how incompetent he is.
Concerning "wet markets", I'd just like to add that 99% of those are normal "butcher's
markets" with lamb, beef, pork, chickens, and sea produce, and 1%, in specific parts of the
country, selling all the Cthulhu fhtagn stuff.
So China reopening some wet markets now is an argument neither for, nor against the
zootropic theory. Because I'm pretty sure they're reopening the "lamb and chicken" wet
markets, not the "H.R.Giger's nightmares" ones, such as the one in Wuhan that is one of the
three possible origins.
1) Wuhan wet market
2) Wuhan lab
3) Wuhan based foreign troops taking part in the military Olympics
Has to be one of those three. Maybe the third was even accidental, but
There's some interesting information in the article for sure, but it seems to me that if the
US were to perform clandestine bio weapons attacks on another country, the Middle East and
Russia would surely be the primary targets. We rely on China for a lot of things, such as
virtually all the goods sold at Walmart and China owns a great deal of our debt, so it would
seem to me a financially strong China is in our interest.
Moreover, plagues and epidemics, especially coronaviruses, have started in the far east as
long as can be remembered.
@Anonymous This is about the most common sense post I have read on this site. SPOT ON.
OUR current problems in regards to immigration, racial issues, Black criminality, and this
(((virus))) can all be traced to one group for the most part. Btw, I was in NYC about the
same time perion in '83-'87 and haven't been back since, but from what I understand, it is
far worse today. I actually didn't find it that bad back then even though crime and drugs
were out of control. Probably because I was a twenty-something and having fun.
Anyhow, as you said, WHY in the hell do ANY Americans, much less White Americans ALLOW
RACIST JEWISH SUPREMACIST organizations have so much power over them. It isn't as if the ADL
or $PLC try and hide their hatred for Whites. I would have no problem for any organization
whether it be Black, Jewish or Hispanic fighting against racism, but lets face it, these
organizations aren't fighting against racism, they main goal is to take away the rights of
Whites or demonize WHITES ONLY.
"Life isn't complicated." And this (((virus))) isn't either. This shit was MANUFACTURED
and we can only guess by whom and what their future intentions are down the road. As usual
the usual suspects have already pretty much revealed themselves to anyone out there really
watching. For the WILLFULLY ignorant ostriches and chinadidit people, well, they must like be
lorded over by a tiny group of people who don't give two shits about them or their
children.
the response of the West has been utterly atrocious either way.
What do you people wish happened -- Trump-issued national lockdown order back in January?
Why do the death counts need to be artificially inflated if this virus is as deadly as the
media says?
These injuries often seem like pneumonia, but they are not caused by an infectious
disease, and they do not improve with antibiotics. Respiratory symptoms reported include:
shortness of breath, chest pain, pain on breathing, and cough. Other symptoms reported by
many patients include: fever, chills, nausea, weight loss, vomiting, diarrhea, or abdominal
pain.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest international implications,
and there are growing demands that China financially compensate our country for its
trillions of dollars in economic losses.
Aren't you comdedians Trillions deep in debt by the Chinese?
Since you'd never pay back anyway, they are in the face saving position to grant you very
generous debt forgiveness.
@Mustapha Mond Not to mention, Mr. Brave New World (how appropriate your name is), it
fits in nicely with Bill Gates' plan for a massive reduction in world population. What
freedom-loving young proles will want to form families and bring children into such a
dystopia? Already, US whites are well below replacement rate and dropping. As of 2018 it was
1.73 babies per woman, 16% below replacement rate, the lowest rate ever recorded. Asian
Americans are even lower at 1.525 (per the World Atlas).
@Chet Roman there things that are kmown:the almost universal economic damage that
stopping the economy,as if it were a ball game,would bring,guaranteed
We all have one hand tied behind our back. There is nobody that I know of presenting
information from inside the border of China to compare with Ronald Unz and his collaborators
at unz.com . I have seen exactly one
document in the last two years. It was a post on medium.com which purportedly was written by a Chinese ex-pat
graduate student in British Columbia with google earth images analyzed to show the
proliferation of concentration camps in Xinjiang for the retention of young male uyghurs.
Every single time I saw this document referenced on the internet it was followed up within
an hour by a shower of posts from all over the place that it was CIA fake news.
Basically at most we know about 1/2 and it is tough to know what to do with that.
@36 ulster Because articles with stated evidence linked to articles/research/legislation
where it is taken from (unlike the MSM, that links nothing other than its own circle-jerk),
and some implicit acceptance that the reader should have the freedom to decide for themselves
– rather than being spoonfed 'truths' agreed upon somewhere 'up high' – offers
people enough respect to allow them to accept that the webzine is not an ideological
printout, but a spectrum of ideas, to be evaluated by the reader. This is a contract with
consideration.
We have no truths from our elected leaders, or their stenographers in the MSM though.
When Trump says 'blame China', most of us see a bankruptcy merchant peddling a lie to
weasel out and default on 1 trn $$ (Martyanov said it first methinks!) – cause that's
what he does, and that's what he knows.
Unz offers a fairly balanced approach to conspiracy theory – not conspiracy
hypothesis. Ain't seen any article on some dude claiming he got anal probed by little green
men without any even anecdotal evidence.
This place debates the smoke, often without the fire. But it's a good start to some
explanation for some fire. Much of the rest of the net doesn't look at the smoke, but instead
distracts its audience with some other eye candy.
But hey, is it fair to complain – some people enjoy WWE!
@utu There's nothing like attacking the person (Wittkowski himself) in place of his point
( herd immunity already gained by Asians before lockdown) to demonstrate your bona fides.
Thanks for your back-handed admittal that you can't rebut his conclusion.
I have been trying to get this across for an age. It's very simple. Anybody who says China
did it is suspect. Not only does the import of their message suggest that the China-did-its
are ruling-class-hired trolls, the trolly smartass tone suggests it, not to mention the
illiteracy.
@Other Side "The drastic changes in the Balkans in the 1990s and the disintegration of
Yugoslavia in particular have resulted in a large number of publications attempting to
explain the break-up of this country and the political developments in the Balkans. Some of
these publications deal partly with the local Muslims who were engaged in the Balkan
conflicts but, with some exceptions, they are focused mainly on recent developments, with
less attention paid to the historical contexts in which the Muslim nationalist movements were
shaped. Although religion played a more important role in the nation-building process of the
Bosnian Muslims than in that of the Albanians, there are very few studies that examine the
reasons for this and the impact of Islam on the Muslim nationalist movements in historical
perspective. The following article examines from a comparative perspective the role of Islam
in the Bosnian Muslim and Albanian national movements from the Ottoman period up to the end
of the Cold War. The Sunni Muslims of Bosnia and the Albanians, who are divided into three
religions and a variety of sects, present contrasting societal structures for the analysis of
different aspects of Islam."
Would you like to read the rest of this article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233460310_The_Bosnian_Muslims_and_Albanians_Islam_and_nationalism
More reading
"Immediately after the fall of communism in Albania in 1991, Arab Islamic fundamentalists
infiltrated the mosques in the country, which is 70 percent Muslim. The interlopers
represented the Saudi Wahhabis and the Egyptian disciples of today's al Qaeda leader Ayman
Al-Zawahiri. In spring 1999, a dozen of Al-Zawahiri's acolytes, known as the "Albanian
Returnees," were deported from the eastern Adriatic republic to Egypt, tried, and sentenced
to death or extended prison terms for terrorism. The "Returnees" had been told by their
"sheikhs" to stay in Albania and avoid going to Kosovo, where NATO military forces were, by
that time, thick on the ground. But Albania booted them out with alacrity. Evidence in the
case of the "Albanian Returnees" proved extremely important in tracing the evolution of al
Qaeda's Egyptian predecessors."
"If you thought the Holomodor was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet!" In my crosshairs@269
That just about sums it up: the 'Holodomor' was a myth cooked up by Nazi collaborators in
the 1940s and designed solely to buttress the argument-beloved by fascists- that the Soviet
Union was 'as bad' as the Nazi regime.
crosshairs is clearly a fascist troll with an agenda of ensuring that the capitalist
system, which fascism treasures for all its worst aspects, should be preserved. He regards
the deaths of a few million civilians, most of them elderly members of a generation fathered
by the men who had crushed fascism on the battlefield, as a very tiny price to pay.
"... Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild once said "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the British Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." ..."
"... Unfortunately that system of control is evident in today's society. Special interests have been behind every US president including Trump. ..."
"... Trump is following his marching orders to big oil interests including his authorized theft of Syrian oil. ..."
"... Trump has given more support to Israel than any of his predecessors, which to the Pentagon is another important agenda. Israel is an important US ally in the Middle East besides Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Trump first trip as President was to Saudi Arabia to sell more weapons, which is business as usual for the arms industry. ..."
"... "We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with" ..."
"... "these events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of the people will always prevail." ..."
"... 'War is a Racket.' ..."
"... "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents" ..."
"... "This conjunction, of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognise the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." ..."
"... (who was the emperor's private army by default is similar to Presidents relationship with the Military-Industrial Complex) ..."
"... "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces" ..."
"... "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. ..."
"... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." ..."
"... TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' ..."
"... "About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capital to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, they were very formal, there was governor, sir and all that, but they put me in a chair and they were in a big half-moon around me, and I said to them, look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what are you doing here? because in the CIA mission statement, it says that they are not operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn't really give me an answer on that and then I said I want to go around the room and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do, half of them wouldn't. Now isn't that bizarre, I'm the governor and these guys wouldn't answer questions from me. Then they started questioning me and it was all about how I got elected. You know what was the most bizarre thing about it was? There was every array of person you could imagine, young people, old people, all nationalities and that's what really got to me. These were people you would see every day. They look like your neighbors." ..."
"... Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change, That's why, in the grand scheme of things, we don't care who's the head of the United States, we know more or less what's going to happen. And so, in this regard, even if we wanted to, it wouldn't make sense for us to interfere ..."
"... Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild once said "I care not what puppet is placed on the
throne of England to rule the British Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls
Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money
supply."
Unfortunately that system of control is evident in today's society. Special interests
have been behind every US president including Trump.
Trump is following his marching orders to big oil interests including his authorized
theft of Syrian oil.
Trump has given more support to Israel than any of his predecessors, which to the
Pentagon is another important agenda. Israel is an important US ally in the Middle East besides
Saudi Arabia.
Trump first trip as President was to Saudi Arabia to sell more weapons, which is
business as usual for the arms industry.
There is a power structure that sets the rules of the game in Washington. The
Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) has an agenda and that is war. A US led war in the Middle
East with Iran is increasingly coming close to reality. It would affect Syria, Lebanon and the
Palestinians.
At some point, the war will reach Latin America targeting Venezuela because of its oil
reserves since Trump likes the "oil". As of now, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador are in chaos due to
new US-backed fascistic governments that re-established neoliberal economic policies which will
lead to the impoverishment of the masses.
The U.S. military has over 800 bases ranging from torture sites to drone hubs in over 70
countries. US tensions are more intense that in any period of time with Iran, Syria and
Hezbollah as Trump signed off on a new defense budget worth $738 billion including funds for
his new Space Force. Despite the fact that the Democrats are still angry over their election
defeat to Trump and are still pushing the Russia collusion hoax and now the farcical
impeachment scandal, but when it comes to foreign policy, both Democrats and Republicans are
unified with the same war agenda. The Trump administration continues its regime change
operations despite the fact that Trump said no more regime change wars when he was a candidate
in 2016. "We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we
shouldn't be involved with"
Fast-forward to 2019, Trump's CIA and others from his administration such as Eliot Abrams, a
Reagan-era neocon was given the green-light to conduct another regime change operation with a
nobody named Juan Guaido leading the Venezuelan opposition against the Maduro government which
failed. Bolivia on the other hand was a success for Washington which was planned the day Evo
Morales was elected President of Bolivia and was allied with Washington's adversaries in Latin
America including Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Brazil (before Balsonaro of course). Trump
continued the pentagon's agenda when he praised the new fascist Bolivian regime who forced
Morales from power with Washington's approval of course. Trump even threatened Nicaragua and
Venezuela with new attempts of regime change when he said that "these events send a strong
signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of
the people will always prevail." In other words, Trump is not in charge.
US Presidents do have some room to make decisions concerning domestic issues such as taxes
or healthcare, but when it comes to foreign policy, its a different story. It's not a
conspiracy theory.
Many people in power has told the world who is really in charge from politicians, Wall
Street bankers to military generals. In a 1935 speech by a Marine General Smedley titled
'War is a Racket.'
A veteran in the Spanish-American War who rose through the ranks during the course of his
career. From 1898 until his retirement in 1931 he was part of numerous interventions all around
the world. Butler was also the most decorated Marine ever with two Medals of Honor added to his
resume. He said the following:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I
spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make
Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it
that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al
Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents"
He was
correct. General Butler could have given notorious gangsters such as Al Capone a few lessons in
how to run a business empire. Then in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made it clear who
had the real power inside Washington in a farewell address he gave to the American public.
Eisenhower issued a stark warning on the dangers of the MIC posed to humanity.
Here is a part of the speech:
"This conjunction, of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, is
new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even
spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal
government. We recognise the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes."
Eisenhower seemed like he was not in agreement with the deep state's decision to drop the
atomic bombs during World War II, perhaps he was cornered by the growing power of the deep
state. A comparison between the Roman Empire and America today is uncanny. In Rome for example,
choosing an emperor was made difficult by the ruling elite, political debates dominated how new
emperors were selected by old emperors, the senate, those who were influential and the
Praetorian Guard which is today's version of the Military-Industrial Complex.
The political and industrial heavyweights and its intelligence agencies select the best two
candidates from the only two political parties who are bought and paid for by corporate and
political interests make the important decisions. The Praetorian Guard (who was the
emperor's private army by default is similar to Presidents relationship with the
Military-Industrial Complex) had dominated the election process for the next century or so
resulting in targeted assassinations of several emperors they did not want in power before
Rome's collapse. They were assassinations and attempted assassinations on US presidents
resulting in four deaths, the most notable assassination in the 20th century was President John
F. Kennedy who wanted to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces" gave a speech on April
27th, 1961 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, many believe, including myself, that
it was the speech that eventually got him killed:
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that
relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration
instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free
choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient
machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political
operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined.
Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed,
no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no
democracy would ever hope or wish to match."
The " tightly knit, highly efficient machine " Kennedy spoke about directs U.S.
presidents to authorize wars or a covert operations to topple foreign governments. Kennedy
exposed that fact and followed that same fate as those emperors in Rome. Even in Domestic
politics, the U.S. government deep state apparatus is in control as the former Governor of
Minnesota Jesse Ventura , who is also a former Navy Seal, actor and professional wrestler who
now has his own show on RT news called 'The World According to Jesse'
admitted on TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' on how the CIA interrogated
him shortly after he became governor:
"About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the
capital to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, they
were very formal, there was governor, sir and all that, but they put me in a chair and they
were in a big half-moon around me, and I said to them, look before I answer any of your
questions, I want to know what are you doing here? because in the CIA mission statement, it
says that they are not operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn't
really give me an answer on that and then I said I want to go around the room and I want each
one of you to tell me your name and what you do, half of them wouldn't. Now isn't that
bizarre, I'm the governor and these guys wouldn't answer questions from me. Then they started
questioning me and it was all about how I got elected. You know what was the most bizarre
thing about it was? There was every array of person you could imagine, young people, old
people, all nationalities and that's what really got to me. These were people you would see
every day. They look like your neighbors."
The US president including all elected congress members are all bought and paid for by the
arms industry, major corporations, bankers, Big Pharma, Big Oil, the media and a handful of
lobbyists with the Israel lobby being the most powerful. Trump is no exception. He will follow
the road given to him by those who are in charge and he will continue the path to a world war,
an agenda that been long in the making. One of America's favorite enemies, Russian President
Vladimir Putin was interviewed by Megan Kelly of NBC news in 2017 and was asked about
the so-called Russian collusion conspiracy theory and he said the following:
Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political
direction does not change, That's why, in the grand scheme of things, we don't care who's the
head of the United States, we know more or less what's going to happen. And so, in this regard,
even if we wanted to, it wouldn't make sense for us to interfere
Whether Trump wants war or even peace, it won't matter, he will do the right thing, for the
deep state that is.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published.
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The coronavirus pandemic has upended the global economic system, and just as importantly,
cast out 40 years of neoliberal orthodoxy that dominated the industrialized world.
Forget about the " new
world order ." Offshoring and global supply chains are out; regional and local production
is in. Market fundamentalism is passé; regulation is the norm. Public health is now more
valuable than just-in-time supply systems. Stockpiling and industrial capacity suddenly make
more sense, which may have future implications in the recently revived
antitrust debate in the U.S.
Biodata will drive the next phase of social management and surveillance, with near-term
consequences for the way countries handle immigration and customs. Health care and education
will become digitally integrated the way newspapers and television were 10 years ago. Health
care itself will increasingly be seen as a necessary public good, rather than a private right,
until now in the U.S. predicated on age, employment or income levels. Each of these will
produce political tensions within their constituencies and in the society generally as they
adapt to the new normal.
This political sea change doesn't represent a sudden conversion to full-on socialism, but
simply a case of minimizing our future risks of infection by providing full-on universal
coverage. Beyond that, as Professor Michael Sandel
has argued , one has to query the "moral logic" of providing "coronavirus treatment for the
uninsured," while leaving "health coverage in ordinary times to the market" (especially when
our concept of what constitutes "ordinary times" has been upended).
Internationally, there will be many positive and substantial international shifts to address
overdue global public health needs and accords on mitigating climate change. And it is finally
dawning on Western-allied economic planners that the military price tag that made so-called
cheap oil and cheap labor possible is vastly higher than investment in advanced research and
next-generation manufacturing.
This also means that the old North (developed world) versus South (emerging world) division
that long preoccupied scholars and
policymakers in the post–World War II period will become increasingly stark again,
particularly for those emerging economies that have hitherto attracted investment largely on
the grounds of being repositories of low-cost labor. They will now find themselves picking
sides as they seek assistance in an increasingly divided and multipolar world.
The fault lines of the next economic era have already begun to surface, creating friction
with the previous international structure of banking and finance, trade and industry. There is
a force beyond elites and critical industries driving this: The proletariat has literally
become the "precariat."
In the U.S. and Europe, the staggering number of service economy workers are going to be
quickly politicized by the shortfalls: People have seen a collapse in income, and big failures
in education, and health care. Union-busting, pension fleecing, and austerity budgets and new
technologies that concentrate wealth away from labor have created a circumstance where
ownership and profit models must be revisited to sustain stability. The needs are too acute to
be distracted by the lies of Trump, or the inadequate responses in other parts of the
industrialized world. The current crisis will likely prompt geopolitical and economic shifts
and dislocations we haven't seen since World War II.
Death of Chimerica, the Rise of New Production Blocs
One of the biggest casualties of the current order is the breakdown of " Chimerica ,"
the decades-old nexus between the U.S. and Chinese economies, along with other leading
countries' partnerships with Chinese manufacturing. While the geopolitics of blame for the
origins of coronavirus continue to shake out, the process that saw a decrease in exports from
China to the U.S. from
$816 billion in 2018 to $757 billion in 2019 will accelerate and intensify over the next
decade.
While a decoupling is unlikely to lead to armed conflict, a Cold War style of competition
could emerge as a new global fault line. Much as the Cold War did not preclude some degree of
collaboration between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, so too today there may still be
areas of cooperation between Washington and Beijing from climate to public health, advanced
research to weapons proliferation.
Nor does this shift necessarily spell the sudden collapse of Chinese power or influence --
it has a colossal and still-growing domestic market and is on the international leaderboard for
a wide range of advanced indicators. But its status as the world's most desirable offshore
manufacturing hub is a thing of the past, along with the economic stability that steady inflows
of foreign capital brought with it. It does show a susceptibility to domestic stress, with the
Hong Kong protests last year providing a hint of what is in store as the party leadership can't
pivot to new realities that include slower economic growth and declining foreign
investment.
As investment flows turn inward back to industrialized countries, there will likely be
corresponding diminution of the global labor arbitrage emanating from the emerging world. In
general, that's a negative for the global South, but potentially a positive factor for workers
elsewhere, whose wages and living standards have stagnated for decades as they lost jobs to
competing overseas low-cost manufacturing centers (the increase in inequality is
principally a product of 40 years of sustained attacks on unions). The jobs won't be the
same, but to be sure, manufacturing incomes exceed those of the service industry.
As each country adopts a " sauve-qui-peut " mentality, businesses and
investors are drawing the necessary conclusions. Coronavirus has been a wake-up call, as
countries trying to import medical goods from existing global supply chains face a
shortage of air and ocean freight options to ship goods back to home markets. Already, the
Japanese government has announced its plans "to spend over $2 billion to help its country's
firms move production out of China," according to the Spectator
Index . The EU leadership is publicly
indicating a policy of subsidy and state investment in companies to prevent Chinese buyouts or
undercutting prices.
Two billion dollars is small potatoes compared to what is likely to be spent by the U.S. and
other countries going forward. And it can't simply be done via research and development tax
credits. The state can and must drive this redomiciling process in other ways: via local content
requirements (LCRs) , tariffs, quotas and/or government procurement local sourcing
requirements. And with a $750-billion-plus budget, the U.S. military will likely play a role
here, as it
ponders disruptions from overseas supply sources .
Of course, if the U.S. does this, other parts of the world -- China, the EU, Japan -- will
likely do the same, which will accelerate the regionalization trends in trade. This may mean
that some U.S. firms will have to operate in foreign markets through local subsidiaries with
local content preferences and local workforces (that is how it worked in the 1920s -- Ford UK
was a mostly local British company, different from the U.S. Ford Motor Company, but with shared
profits).
An examination of U.S. planning for the post-1945 world reveals the emphasis was on free
trade in raw materials mostly, not finished goods. (The U.S. only adopted one-way "free trade"
with its Asian and European allies later as a Cold War measure to accelerate their development
and keep them in the American orbit.)
Domestically within the U.S., as
Dalia Marin writes , the coming declines in interest rates will accelerate "robot adoption"
by 75.7 percent, with concentration "in the sectors that are most exposed to global value
chains. In Germany, that means autos and transport equipment, electronics, and textiles --
industries that import around 12 percent of their inputs from low-wage countries. Globally, the
industries where the most reshoring activity is taking place are chemicals, metal products, and
electrical products and electronics."
As the coronavirus pandemic is illustrating, a viable industrial ecosystem cannot work
effectively if it is dispersed to too many geographic extremities or there are insufficient
redundancies built into the transportation of goods back into the home market (rail, highway,
etc.). Proximity has become a significant competitive advantage for manufacturers, and a
strategic advantage for governments. But the U.S. government must play an expanded role in the
planning process. The U.S. is still a leader in many high-tech areas, but is suffering the
consequences of a generation-long effort to undermine the government's natural role as an
economic planner.
In the form of the regionalized blocs that are being sketched, in the Americas, Mexico is
likely to be one of the leading recipients of American foreign direct investment (FDI). It
already has a
$17 billion medical device industry and is sure to absorb much more capacity from China.
This has
already started to happen as a result of the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA,
or new NAFTA) . Furthermore, the
Washington Post reports that "[a]s demand soars for medical devices and personal protective
equipment in the fight against the coronavirus, the United States has turned to the phalanx of
factories south of the border that are now the outfitters of many U.S. hospitals." This is in
addition to the
thousands of assembly plants already in place in Mexico since the establishment of NAFTA.
Indeed, if the jobs that had moved to China move to Mexico, Central America, and South America,
this likely addresses many long-standing social tensions in regard to immigration management,
currency imbalances and corresponding black market industries (ironically, it also likely means
the end of Trump's wall, as the industrial ecosystem of the Americas becomes more cohesive and
widespread).
Big Business Is Good Business
But this will also have significant impacts closer to home: Much as Franklin Delano
Roosevelt ultimately prioritized domestic
ramp-ups in wartime production over trust-busting , so too national champions are likely to
feature more prominently today, as domestic scale and balance sheet strength are given
precedence to accommodate the drive to revive employment quickly,
and work collaboratively to halt the spread of the coronavirus . The scale of companies
will not be regarded as a political problem if they can both deliver for consumers and show the
capacity of following political direction for what the public's needs are. Tech companies like
Apple and Google are stepping up to fill the void left by
massive federal government dysfunction . The " break up Big
Tech " voices are nowhere to be heard at the moment.
We still need a more robust form of regulation for these corporate behemoths, but via a
system of regulation that is "function-centric," rather than size-centric. As co-author
Marshall Auerback has written
before , this kind of regulation "restricts the range of corporate activities (e.g.,
structural separation so as to prevent companies like Amazon and Google from owning both the
platform as well as participating as a seller on that platform), or the prices such companies
can charge (as regulators often do for utilities or railways). These considerations would be
'size neutral': they would apply independently of corporate size per se."
Capitalism has always had its plutocrats, but scaling back America's overly financialized
model (by preventing stock buybacks, to cite one example) would represent a useful reform and
prevent a lot of economic waste. Instead of going to enrich executives and shareholders beyond
the dreams of Croesus ,
that measure might help to ensure that the profits of these companies will be directed to the
workers' wages (which also means supporting increased unionization), or plowed back into
investment (e.g., increased robotics).
Biodata, Privacy, and an End to Pandemic Profiteering
And there are fault lines in the business world. The pharmaceutical and medical research
industries face immense pressure from other businesses to end the pandemic so they can get back
to profitability. That means temporarily setting aside profits and pooling intellectual
property to encourage collaborative efforts on the part of biotech and pharmaceutical companies
to find proper treatments for COVID-19, and make them freely available, especially if
governments were to waive antitrust scrutiny in exchange for all of the data Big Pharma
companies collectively hold. As the
Guardian reports , "[t]here is a precedent. Last June, 10 of the world's largest
pharmaceutical companies -- including Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline --
announced they would pool data for an AI-based search for new antibiotics, which are
urgently needed as antibiotic-resistant bacteria have proliferated across the world,
threatening the growth of untreatable disease."
Privacy
advocates are already expressing concerns about a growing and overweening medical
surveillance state. These surveillance concerns lack historical context: From the 19th century
on, serious health problems were met by hardline government policies to reduce them. Policies
ranging from quarantine to vaccine were not always mandatory, but there was an understanding
that personal concessions had to be made to manage a huge population and an advanced society;
the Constitution was not a suicide pact. We can further alleviate those concerns today by
ensuring that the information uncovered does not become a precondition or additional cost of
receiving insurance coverage. In light of coronavirus, cost savings of incorporating biodata
into immigration and customs are a no-brainer for governments, and are certain to cause
friction with individuals who may not want to give blood or saliva to get a visa or work
permit, and agribusiness leaders who know that safety measures cut into profitability. But the
scales have tipped in the other direction.
North Versus South
What about the other countries in the developing world that don't have close geographic
proximity to a home market, or abundant supplies of key commodities required for 21st-century
manufacturing needs, or even a well-developed manufacturing base (in other words, the countries
that have hitherto been large recipients of investment solely on the grounds of cheap labor)?
Many of them have faced immediate pressure with the collapse in global trade, unprecedented
capital flight that is sure to grow as the coronavirus spreads, all the while coping with
COVID-19 with highly inadequate health systems.
In the meantime, the
multi-trillion-dollar market for emerging market debt , both sovereign bonds and commercial
paper, has collapsed. Many of these countries, via their state pension funds and sovereign
wealth funds, have become the ultimate endpoint for many of the newer asset-backed securities
that finally revived years after the 2008 financial crisis. This has become the potential new
stress point in the $52 trillion "
shadow banking " market. The U.S. Federal Reserve has sought to ease the funding stresses
of much of the developing economies by offering central bank swap lines. It has also broadened
prime dealer collateral acceptance rules, and set up commercial paper swap facilities, all of
which have eased short-term funding pressures in these economies that have incurred substantial
dollar liabilities.
As the emerging world central banks then start to lend on those lines to their own banks, it
should start to alleviate the shortage of dollars in the offshore dollar funding markets. We
are starting to see some easing of stresses, notably in
Indonesia -- because it's an exporter of resources more than a cheap labor price
economy.
But whereas in previous emerging markets crises, China was able to buttress these economies
via initiatives such as the " Belt and Road Initiative ,"
Beijing itself is likely to be buffeted by the twin shocks of declining global trade and a
reversal of foreign direct investment, which declined 8.6 percent in the first
two months of this year .
Longer-term, many other countries face comparable challenges to China: Capital controls,
collapsing domestic currencies, and widespread debt defaults are likely to become the norm.
That's already
happened to serial defaulter Argentina again . South Africa has been
downgraded to junk status . Turkey remains vulnerable. The so-called "BRICS" economies --
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- are all sinking like bricks. The problem is
exacerbated by the fact that coronavirus and likely future pandemics will create additional
stresses on developing economies that depend on their labor price advantage in the
international marketplace to survive.
By contrast, countries like South Korea and Taiwan have had a "good crisis." Both have
vibrant manufacturing sectors and created successful multiparty democracies. Foreign investment in South Korea continued to grow in
the first quarter of this year, as it rapidly moved to contain the spread of COVID-19 through
an extensive testing regime (while keeping its economy open). Similarly in Taiwan, by
activating a national emergency response system launched in 2004 (following the SARS virus),
that country has mounted a thoroughly competent coronavirus
intervention of unprecedented effectiveness . The results speak for themselves: as of April
15, in South Korea, a mere 225
deaths , while in Taiwan, an astonishingly low total
of six deaths in a country of 24 million people -- this despite far more exposure to
infected Chinese visitors than Italy, Spain or the U.S.
Of course, the very success of Taiwan's response revives another potential fault line,
namely the tension underlying the "One China" policy. Before COVID-19, it is
noteworthy that the WHO "even refused to publicly report Taiwan's cases of SARS until public
pressure prompted numbers to be published under the label of 'Taiwan, province of China,'"
according to Dr. Anish Koka . At the very least, Taiwan's divergent approach and success at
fighting the pandemic will bolster its pro-independence factions.
The question of foreign nations upholding Taiwan's sovereignty with regard to China is
increasingly thorny, given Beijing's growing military capacities. This will present an ongoing
diplomatic challenge to Western parties who seek to increase engagement with Taipei without
heightening tensions in the region.
A Recalculation of 'Economic Value'
We have outlined many fault lines likely to be exposed or exacerbated as a consequence of
COVID-19. Happily, there is one fault line likely to be slammed shut: namely, the false
dichotomy that has long existed between economic growth and environmentalism. The Global Assessment from
the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
reports that "land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23 percent of the global land
surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and
100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of
coastal habitats and protection." Likewise, the study cites the fact that as of 2015, 33
percent of marine fish stocks "were being harvested at unsustainable levels," and notes the
rise of plastic pollution (which "has increased tenfold since 1980 "),
both of which play a key role in degrading ecosystems in a manner that ultimately destroys
economic growth.
Finally, repeated pandemics over the past few decades have shown these are not blips, but
recurrent features of today's world. Hence, there is an increasing public appetite for
regulation to deal with this ongoing problem. Some industries, such as agribusinesses, won't
like this, but the concerns are well-founded. According to
expert Josh Balk , 75 percent of new diseases start in domestic and wild-caught animals,
and 2.2 million people die each year from illnesses transferred from animals. The majority of
these are transferred from poorly regulated factory farm chickens, cows and pigs; still, the "
wet markets" of Asia and Africa, and the trade in potential " transfer species ," such as
pangolins, a major driver of the $19
billion-a-year global trade in illegal wildlife, must also be addressed. Beijing has
suggested it will
ban trade in illegal wildlife and seek tighter regulation of the wet markets . The latter
in particular may be easier said than done, according to Dr. Zhenzhong
Si , a research associate at Canada's University of Waterloo who specializes in Chinese
food security, sustainability, and rural development. Dr. Si
argued that "[b]anning wet markets is not only going to be impossible, but will also be
destructive for urban food security in China as they play such a pivotal role in ensuring urban
residents' access to affordable and healthy food."
To be fair, this isn't the first time that the sacred tenets of the global economic
framework have dealt with a crisis that seemed to usher in a new era. The same thing happened
in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. But that was largely seen as a financial
crisis, a product of faulty global financial plumbing that nobody truly understood, as opposed
to a widespread social collapse closely approximating the conditions of the Great Depression as
we have today.
Not only has the current lockdown put the entire global economy into deep freeze, but it
also came amidst a backdrop of widespread political and social upheaval, and a faux recovery
whose fruits were largely restricted to the top tier. A collateralized debt obligation is not
intuitively easy to grasp. By contrast, being forced to stay at home, deprived of vital income
and isolated from loved ones, while health care workers perish from overwork and lack of
protective gear, is a different order of magnitude.
Even as we re-integrate, it is hard to envisage a return to the "old normal." Trade patterns
will change. Self-sufficiency and geographic proximity will be prioritized over global
integration. There will be new winners and losers, but it is worth noting that the model of
capitalism we are describing -- one that does not feature obscenely overcompensated CEO pay
co-existing with serf labor and the widespread offshoring of manufacturing -- has existed in
different forms in the U.S. from 1945 into the 1980s, and still exists in parts of Europe
(Germany) and East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) to this day.
Our everyday lives will be impacted as selective quarantines and some forms of social
distancing become the new normal (much as they were when we dealt with tuberculosis epidemics).
All of this has implications for a multitude of industries: restaurants, leisure, travel,
tourism, sporting events, entertainment, and media, as well as our evolving definition of
"essential" industries. Even our concept of personal privacy will likely have to be amended,
especially in regard to medical matters. Concerns about medical surveillance -- stigma (STDs,
alcoholism, mental illness) and denial of insurance -- can be alleviated if everyone is
guaranteed treatment regardless of ability to pay, which will mean greater government intrusion
into the lives of citizens and activities of businesses as the public sector seeks to socialize
costs.
Taken in aggregate, we are about to experience the most profound social, economic and
political changes since World War II.
This article was produced byEconomy for All, a
project of the Independent Media Institute.
The Times long ago abandoned journalism the way it's supposed to be. All the news it claims
fit to print isn't fit to read.
Its daily editions feature state-approved managed news misinformation and disinformation --
notably against sovereign independent nations on the US target list for regime change.
Russia notably has been a prime target since its 1917 revolution, ending its czarist
dictatorship.
Except during WW II and Boris Yeltsin's 1990s rule, Times anti-Russia propaganda was and
remains relentless, notably throughout the Vladimir Putin era, the nation's most distinguished
ever political leader.
When Yeltsin died in April 2007, the Times shamefully called him "a Soviet-era reformer the
country's democratic father and later a towering figure of his time as the first freely elected
leader of Russia, presiding over the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demise of the
Communist Party (sic)."
He presided over Russia's lost decade. Under him, over half the population became
impoverished.
His adoption of US shock therapy produced economic genocide. GDP plunged 50%. Life
expectancy fell sharply.
Democratic freedoms died. An oligarch class accumulated enormous wealth.
Western interests profited at the expense of millions of exploited Russians.
Yeltsin let corruption and criminality flourish. One scandal followed others. Grand theft
became sport. So did money laundering.
Billions in stolen wealth were secreted in Western banks and offshore tax havens.
A critic reviled him, saying throughout much of his tenure, he "slept, drank, was ill,
relaxed, didn't show his face before the people and simply did nothing," adding:
"Despised by the majority of (Russians, he'll) go down in history as the first president of
Russia, having corrupted (the country) to the breaking point, not by his virtues and or by his
defects, but rather by his dullness, primitiveness, and unbridled power lust of a
hooligan."
He was a Western/establishment media favorite, notably by the Times, mindless of the human
misery and economic wreckage he caused.
Putin is a preeminent world leader, towering over his inferior Western counterparts,
especially in the US, why the Times reviles him.
On Monday, its propaganda machine falsely accused him of waging a long war on US science,
claiming he's promoting disinformation to "encourage the spread of deadly illnesses (sic)."
Not a shred of evidence was presented because none exists. The Times' disinformation report
was slammed in a preceding article.
On Wednesday, the self-styled newspaper of record was at it again -- reactivating the Big
Lie that won't die, saying with no corroborating evidence that "Russia may have sown
disinformation in a dossier used to investigate a former Trump campaign aide (sic),"
adding:
"Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide with numerous links to Russia was probably a
Russian agent (sic)."
Disinformation the Times cited came from former UK intelligence agent Christopher Steele's
dodgy dossier, financed by the DNC and Hillary campaign.
Its spurious accusations were exposed as fake news, notably phony accusations of Russian US
election interference that didn't happened.
Probes by Robert Mueller, House and Senate committees found no credible evidence of an
illegal or improper Trump campaign connection to Russia or election interference by the Kremlin
-- because there was none of either.
According to the Times, Steele's dodgy dossier "was potentially influenced by a 'Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations,' " citing FBI Big Lies as its
source.
Another article on Russia this week claimed "many people who don't work for the government
or in deep-pocketed state enterprises face economic devastation," adding:
Domestic violence increased because of social distancing and sheltering in place.
Not mentioned in the article is that mass unemployment and other COVID-19 fallout affect
Western and other countries adversely.
Putin was slammed for sending COVID-19 aid to the US, calling it "a propaganda coup for the
Kremlin -- tempered by an intensifying epidemic at home."
Outbreaks in Russia are a small fraction of US numbers, around 21,000 through Wednesday --
compared to nearly 650,000 in the US and over 28,000 deaths.
Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Britain have five-to-eightfold more outbreaks than
Russia.
NYC has over 110,000 cases. In the NY, NJ, CT tristate area, around 300,000 cases were
reported, almost as many COVID-19 deaths as outbreaks in Russia -- through Wednesday.
Putin is dealing with what's going on responsibly, stressing "we certainly must not relax,
as long as outbreaks occur.
A paid holiday is in effect through end of April for Russian workers, likely to be extended
if needed.
Essential workers continue on the job -- at home if able, otherwise operating as before.
National efforts continue to control outbreaks, aid ordinary Russians at a time of duress,
and work to restore more normal conditions.
While dealing with outbreaks at home, Russia supplied Italy, Serbia, and the US with aid to
combat the virus.
Yet Pompeo falsely accused Russia, China, and Iran with spreading disinformation about
COVID-19.
Gratitude and good will aren't US attributes, just the opposite.
The book is called (in American English) "The Battle for Stalingrad". It is, in practice,
Marshall Vassily Ivanovich Chuikov's personal testimony (with post-war conclusions) of the
Battle of Stalingrad. He was commander of the 62nd Army - the one who fought directly againt
the 6th Army, inside the city itself.
You can find the English version in the internet. It is from 1968.
The British English version is titled "The Beginning of the Road" and was first published
in 1963.
The original, in Russian, is from 1959.
The pages I quoted (from the American version) is the subchapter titled "The Binding
Force", pages 291-306. But, evidently, I recommend to read the book in full, as it is a
primary source for one of the most important moments of one of the most important wars in
History.
Overall, I think Chuikov's version is precise and honest. The only weird thing to me was
his complete omission of Stalin (he even avoided Stalin's name when it was unavoidable,
calling him simply "supreme commander") and he mentions everytime he saw Krushchev in action
- sometimes, apparently, superflously (WWII history is not my field of expertise, so I may be
wrong on this one). Looks like they reflect the "destalinization" camapaign initiated by
Krushchev after he took de facto power in 1953.
Although, it is important to highlight, Krushchev seemed to be really popular among the
WWII-Post-war military: he was only able to neutralize the stalinist forces after 1953
because he had ample support from the new generation of Red Army officers - including Zhukov.
It is not farfetched to speculate he really impressed during the war - even though as a
commissar.
[...]Naval Secretary Thomas Motly -- who missed his calling as a political commissar in the
old Red Army[...]
I know this is a rant aimed to an American readership, but it's important to clarify the
history and nature of the commissariat of the Red Army.
First of all, the commissars were born out of sheer, immediate, necessity - not out of
ideology. The Russian Revolution happened without an army - the Russian Empire simply
disintegrated and the Bolsheviks literally walked through the Winter Palace (there were only
seven dead - probably the last idealist guards remaining - in the October Revolution per
se).
The old imperial army and the imperial "air force" (or the joke the czar called air force)
also disintegrated by themselves in the October Revolution. Only the Navy survived intact -
but it was confined the the Bay of Finland, in the ports of St. Petersburg (future
Leningrad).
The Bolsheviks took power without an army, but, soon after, the future White Army begun to
be assembled by the imperial powers. As a result, the Bolsheviks needed an army literally for
yesterday.
The Red Army was then created literally by decree, in February 1918. The problem is that
modern warfare required experience and specific knowledge, so they literally had to forgive
old imperial army officers in exchange for their services. Not all of them accepted, and the
few who did were obviously suspected of a possible military coup. The commissar was then
created.
Contrary to western post-war beliefs, the role of the commissar was not indoctrination of
the masses. The Bolsheviks already had overwhelming popular support in 1917 - even though the
peasants supported them not because they had become communists, but because they were granted
land and peace thanks to them. The commissar was there as a Damocles' Sword for the
ex-imperial army officers.
During WWII, the threat of internal sabotage among the imperial officers in the Red Army
still existed, but was vestigial - the German menace was simply to great and too obvious to
give any room for a military coup. Ironically, the commissar's role in the Red Army didn't
vanish - but was enhanced - during this period, albeit in a modified form.
Here's a contemporary document from Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov, commander of the 62nd Army
(which fought in the city of Stalingrad, against the Wehrmacht's 6th Army):
Considering the beginning of the battle for Stalingrad as the opening of a new stage in the
war, the Communist Party mobilized the whole Soviet people to carry out the operation
successfully. This was the way, the only way, we saw the development of the battle by the
Volga. All mankind owes a debt to the Communist Party and its Central Committee for
organizing the defeat of the German armies at Stalingrad, bringing a crucial change in the
progress of the second world war.
This answer is inadequate, however, unless we add that the Communist Party was preparing
for this change in unbelievably difficult conditions and long before the beginning of the
Battle of Stalingrad.
As we know, in the first year of the war many of our industrial areas were occupied by
the enemy. In the shortest possible space of time the factories on defense production,
which had been transferred to the east, had to be restarted. What skill, talent and
will-power this required from Communists working behind the lines, organizing the assembly
of the factories evacuated to almost barren plains, organizing labour for them, obtaining
electricity and raw materials and going full speed ahead to produce everything needed for
the front!
In addition to overcoming the economic difficulties, the Party had to undertake enormous
and complicated work on the strictly military plane, so as to overcome the consequences of
the so-called surprise attack. I say 'so-called', because we could not but know of the
concentration of Nazi troops at the frontiers of the Soviet Union.
[...]
Preparing to seize the oil regions of the Caucasus, the German armies broke through to
the Crimea, destroyed our bridgehead at Feodosiya[...]
Such a situation could not but give rise to alarm.[...]
Without hiding this from the Party organizations and the people as a whole, the Central
Committee of the Party intervened and put forward the slogan: 'Not a step back!'
[...]
The leadership of the political administration and of the most important sections of
Front H.Q. was taken in hand by energetic Party workers, members of the Central Committee
and secretaries of regional committees, Comrades Chuyanov, Doronin and Serdyuk. Thousands
of Communists with extensive experience of Party political work joined the troops at the
front. In the 62nd Army alone, of the ten thousand Communists summoned from various regions
of the country, there were more than five hundred secretaries who had been in charge of
departments of, and instructors from, district, regional and city committees, secretaries
of collective farm and factory organizations, and other Party workers. To strengthen the
Army's political section the Central Committee sent I. V. Kirillov and A. N. Kruglov; a
Deputy People's Commissar of the R.S.F.S.R., A. D. Stupov, and others, also came. A strong
Party nucleus had been formed in the Army. There was no company without a substantial
stratum of Party members, and in the 33rd, 37th and 39th Guards Divisions many battalions
consisted exclusively of Communist Party and Komsomol members.
The Party's forces were posted to all the Army's key sectors. On marches, in the
trenches and in battle, Communists, by their personal example, showed how to fight to carry
out the demand of the Party, of the nation, that there should be 'Not a step back!'
Hundreds, thousands, of Communists explained to the men that there could be no further
retreat, that the enemy could not only be halted, but could be thrown back. For this, all
that was needed was only determination and skill. The example and spirit of self-sacrifice
of the Communists were a force that it is impossible to measure; its influence on the minds
of every soldier will never be understood by the modern writers of fat volumes published in
the west about the last war, or by those who refuse to admit that the decisive blow, the
one which brought a turning point in the course of the war, was delivered by the Soviet
armed forces.
[...]
As I have said, the Party's forces were posted to all the most important sectors, and
that means that the political work was not carried out as something separate from the
Army's tasks, but in the units themselves, so as to ensure that military orders were
carried out.
We are now accustomed to reading articles and reports that the 'soldiers of the 62nd Army
fought to the death'. It was not a simple matter, however, to prepare men to resist so
tenaciously.
Imagine a soldier marching in a column along a dusty road towards the Volga. He is tired
and can hardly keep his eyes open for dust and sweat; on his shoulder he has an anti-tank
rifle or a tommy-gun, on his belt a cartridge-pouch with bullets and grenades; on his back
he has a knapsack with provisions and bits and pieces given him by his wife or mother for
the long road. In addition, somewhere, a long way away, he has left his mother, his wife,
his children. He is thinking about them, is hoping to go back to them. But here he is
approaching the Volga, and he sees the sky, lit crimson by the fires; he can already hear
the thunder of explosions, and again he thinks about his home, his wife, his children. Only
this time he thinks something different: 'How will they manage to live without me?' And if
at this moment you don't remind him about the mortal danger that hangs over his country, of
his sacred duty to his homeland, the weight of his thoughts will make him stop or slow
down. But he goes on, he does not stop: along the sides of the road are posters, slogans,
eagerly calling him on:
'Comrade! If you don't stop the enemy in Stalingrad, he will enter your home and destroy
your village!'
The enemy must be crushed and destroyed in Stalingrad!'
'Soldier, your country will not forget your exploit.'
Evening falls. He arrives at the ferry. Alongside the landing-stage are smashed-up boats,
an armoured boat with holes in its sides. Along the bank, under bushes, under broken
down poplars, in shell-holes and ditches, are men. Hundreds of men, but there is silence:
with bated breath they are watching the city across the Volga, the city enveloped in
flames. The very stones there seem to be on fire. In places the glow lights up the clouds.
Are men really alive and
fighting in that inferno? How can they breathe? What is it they are defending --
smouldering ruins, heaps of stones? . . . But there is an order to cross to the other side
in the ferry, and go straight into battle ...
Yes, there is such an order, but if you rely on one order, without preparing the morale of
men to carry it out, then it will be a slow process getting the men on to the ferry, and as
soon as the boat comes under fire the men will abandon it and swim, not to the blazing
inferno, not towards the battle, but back, back to the bank they have just set out from.
What do you do in this situation? In this case posters and slogans won't help you. Someone
has to set an example. In every company, in every platoon, there is a man who will swim,
not back, but forward, and will lead the men to the bank of the blazing city . .. And there
were such men not only in the companies and platoons, but in every squad. They were
Communist Party and Komsomol members. Carrying out their commanders' orders, they set a
personal example of what to do in the situation, and how to do it.
[...]
It must be borne in mind that in the conditions of street fighting, when continuously,
night and day, for weeks and months at a stretch, the noise of battle roared, the political
workers could not, had no opportunity to, hold big meetings and rallies of Red Army men, so
as to explain to them the most important Party decisions and the orders from Front Command.
There was neither place nor time for long, passionate speeches. The Party agitator or
propagandist would
often explain Party policy in a short chat with a soldier in a cellar or under a staircase,
more often than not while the battle was raging, showing in practice how to use weapons and
carry out the commander's instructions. Quite frankly, such a demonstration had a greater
effect on the men than a long speech would have done. The political workers of the 62nd
Army, therefore, had to be fully conversant with the tactics of street fighting, and be
able themselves to make first-class use of weapons, primarily tommy-guns and grenades. And
the majority of them coped well with the task.
[...] It seems to me that the basic service performed by the 62nd Army's Party
organizations was that, after clarifying the characteristics of street fighting, the
political workers transferred the centre of gravity of their work to the companies, to the
platoons, to the storm groups. The basic form of the work of the political instructors, the
Party and Komsomol organizers, and the instructors from the political sections became the
individual conversation. This was the only way of helping each soldier to understand that
he could and must put everything he had into the fight, even in the eventuality of his
remaining alone behind enemy lines. He had to make use of the trust placed in him by his
commanders, the right to act on his own, intelligently; he had to bear in mind the task
that had been set for the whole regiment, division and Army. Trust, trust and more trust --
that was what made it possible to raise the creative, fighting efficiency of the mass of
the soldiers. This was painstaking, complicated and responsible work, and, as we know, it
produced excellent results. We can say without exaggeration that thanks to such activity by
the Party organizations, every man defending the city became an insuperable obstacle in the
path of the enemy.
The work of the Party organizations to ensure that military orders were carried out was
conducted effectively and with a clear purpose. The inspectors and instructors of the
Army's political section would go out to the sectors where the most difficult and
complicated tasks had to be carried out. They went with the well-defined aim of taking the
Army's orders to every soldier, of mobilizing the Party and Komsomol organizations to carry
out military orders in all conditions. Conditions, as we know, were complex and different
on every sector. And it was very good to see that the political workers selected their form
and methods of work with the troops in accordance with the circumstances, did not sit
waiting for an appropriate moment, but went straight to the storm group, to the
machine-gunners, the infantrymen, the sappers, wherever they might be. No break in carrying
out mass political work among the troops -- that was what the
political sections constantly demanded of their workers.
Hitler's late reforms seem to confirm Chuikov's testimony. When the war was already lost
and the battlefield went to Germany proper, he desperately tried to emulate the office of
commissar in the Wehrmacht. You know an aspect of an army is extremely successful when your
enemy tries to copy you.
During a conference call with reporters, Lavrov dismissed Western claims that the Kremlin
provided the assistance hoping it would help persuade the European Union to lift sanctions
against Russia.
The U.S. and EU sanctions, imposed in response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's
Crimea and support for a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, have limited Russia's access
to global financial markets and blocked transfers of Western technologies. Russia responded by
banning imports of most Western agricultural products.
Asked if Moscow would push the EU to lift the restrictions, Lavrov said that Russia wouldn't
ask for it. "If the EU realizes that this method has exhausted itself and renounces the
decisions that were made in 2014, we will be ready to respond in kind," he added.
Lavrov also criticized those in the West who suggested that China should pay compensation
for allegedly failing to provide early enough warnings about the country's virus cases, which
were reported in December.
"The claims that China must pay everyone for the outbreak and the alleged failure to give
timely information about it cross all limits and go beyond any norms of decency," Lavrov said,
emphasizing that China has offered assistance to many nations. "My hair stands on end when I
hear that."
Without mentioning the United States by name, Russia's top diplomat also countered
Washington's criticism of the World Health Organization.
The recovery will NOT be, but Trump will distract all Americans by screaming against China
and how China is responsible for everything. Expect Americans to fall in line and the anti
Russia hysteria to now turn into super anti China hysteria. Expect attacks against Asians in
USA
And all because the Chinese were greedy bastards eager to make money and they quickly forgot
history and how the Ango Saxon treated them just merely 150 years ago.
As somebody who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe it the 70s, I vividly remember how we
were warned how the Americans will try to hurt us by spreading bio weapons. This was grilled
into us over and over. The Communists knew. China better gt prepared, the West will try to
rip them a brand new assholes. And they got nobody to blame but themselves!
Interesting (though, not surprising) news from the
Russian MoD:
On the night of 13-14 April 2020, a group of illegal armed groups trained at the United
States Armed Forces base in the "Rukban" camp area attempted to withdraw from et-Tanf zone.
The militants intended to surrender to government forces and return to peaceful life. On
the border of the 55-kilometre security zone, the group was attacked by a group of radical
armed gang "commandos of the revolution" - "Magavir Al-Saura," controlled by the United
States.
As a result of the fighting, the militants lost three pickup trucks. 27 people managed
to escape and are currently in Palmira under guard of Syrian governmental forces. They
handed over dozens of small arms, among them grenade-launchers and heavy machine guns,
including Western made.
According to the testimony passed to the government by the illegal armed group members,
the weapons and cars "pickup" were provided to them by the Americans. Trainers from the
United States trained them to sabotage oil and gas and transport infrastructure, as well as
to organize terrorist acts in territory controlled by Syrian government forces .
Russia
confirmed 3,448 new coronavirus infections on Thursday, bringing the country's official
number of cases to 27,938 and marking the fifth consecutive one-day record in new cases.
President Vladimir Putin postponed a landmark military parade to mark the 75th
anniversary of Soviet victory in World War II as Russia struggles to contain the rapid spread
of the coronavirus.
Moscow authorities said they have switched to random checks of public transit
passengers' quarantine passes rather than checking each person's pass after large queues
formed outside metro stations during rush hour Wednesday.
More updates
-- Russian tech giant Yandex will start delivering coronavirus tests to the homes of Moscow
residents aged 65 and older. The first 10,000 tests will be delivered at no cost, the company
said, and the test delivery service will later be expanded to all age groups.
-- Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin signed a decree to provide the
city's doctors with free taxi rides to and from work, as well as free hotel accommodation,
during the coronavirus outbreak.
-- President Vladimir Putin believes the global coronavirus pandemic is an opportunity for
his country to work together with the United States, the Kremlin said. U.S. President Donald
Trump on Wednesday offered to send ventilators to Russia.
-- One-third of all coronavirus infections in the Leningrad region are concentrated in a
crowded hostel that houses migrant workers involved in construction at an IKEA-owned shopping
mall, local media
reported .
... ... ... -- The Murmansk region will use electronic bracelets to monitor the movements of
coronavirus patients self-isolating at home and people suspected of having the coronavirus, the
investigative Novaya Gazeta newspaper
reported .
-- The head of Moscow's main coronavirus hospital has
recovered from the virus two weeks after he tested positive.
-- Nine doctors at a hospital in the Moscow region have been infected with coronavirus, the
RBC news website reported
Tuesday. Doctors there had complained that the hospital doesn't isolate patients suspected of
having coronavirus and that there's a shortage of personal protective equipment.
At least 170 doctors and patients at a hospital in central Russia have tested positive for
coronavirus in preliminary tests, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency reported .
-- The head doctor at Moscow's Davydovsky hospital, Yelena Vasiliyeva, has tested positive
for coronavirus, the Mash Telegram channel reported . Because she continued to work and attend
conferences while waiting for the test results, more than 500 patients and doctors who were in
contact with her are now self-quarantining and getting tested for the virus.
"Sergey Lavrov: Of course, the pandemic has created very serious problems, the most
important of which is saving people's lives, ensuring their security, biomedical safety and
the preservation of the human environment, which should be comfortable and pose no threats to
life and health."
Thanks for the link. Russia has the best leadership in the world right now. I have read
transcripts from lavrov and putin on many occasions, I seem to recall listening to putin
speak a few times in english; these guys are always level headed, competent, rational; and
first and foremost, taking care of their people.
As an american, I am jealous. Just compare them to any of our leaders in my lifetime
(50yrs), and for that matter, I haven't even read about too many of our leaders being real
statesmen, absolutely no comparison.
Lavrov is an artist cloaked in diplomatic disguise. I find him very pleasurable to read.
Yes, he said a great many things in answer to a wide variety of questions. Aside from the
quote cited @38, for me there were two important points. The first was the Outlaw US Empire's
offer to resume discussions on arms control and outer space, although I suspect the upcoming
election is tied to the offer. Second relates to my thesis that nations can be seen as
Nurturing or Parasitic based on their behavior during this crisis. One of the attributes of
Nurturing nations is the collective aspect of their socio-cultural composition:
Question: "However, there is a lack of global unity and joint efforts to fight the
pandemic. In addition, the existing alliances have proven ineffective in these conditions. In
your opinion, how will all this affect the future world order? What will it look like after
the pandemic?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my response to one of the first questions I said that apart from
fighting the pandemic and resolving economic problems at the national and global levels the
third greatest challenge is to understand what lies ahead for multilateral institutions, what
role they will play in the future and whether they will remain relevant. The outcome of the
fight against the coronavirus will show which countries and multilateral structures have
withstood the test of this horrible threat, this crisis. I understand your concern that
the egoistic aspirations we are currently witnessing in the behaviour of some countries could
prevail, leading to future attempts to self-insulate from the outside world . We are
already witnessing anxious debates about Schengen Area countries on their shared future and
neighbourly relations. In the end, I think that a collective approach will prevail. It may
take some time though. It will require meetings and persuasion. However, this is the only
possible way forward ." [My Emphasis]
The unilateral, Rugged Individual, Herd Immunity, Neoliberal approach has failed bigtime
despite frantic efforts to keep them afloat--note that such approaches were opposed by the
publics of those nations whose "leaders" trod that path. I recall the aim of The Man in
the Wilderness was to return to his collective--his family--and the fear that gripped the
collective that abandoned him. (There's a very big lesson there if people think upon it while
watching the film.) The attempt to glorify the Rugged Individual is unique, began in the
1820s with the popular writings of James Fenimore Cooper, and solely belongs to the Outlaw US
Empire and its attempt to cultivate the myth of Manifest Destiny and American
Exceptionalism.
It appears the only collectivism to be allowed within the Outlaw US Empire is that of the
Money Power; all others are to be atomized, restricted in their ability to act together
except when laboring to feed the Money Power. Something like Orwell's description of the
Proles in 1984 --joyfully ignorant and powerless. The only way to thwart the Money
Power's plan for ongoing dominance and pauperization of the Outlaw US Empire's masses is for
those masses to discover how to act collectively. Yes, it's been done before but the effort
was abandoned prior to the final goal being attained in 1900. There was another attempt to
establish a mass collective during the early 1930s, but that too was thwarted and its memory
washed away by War and the pseudo war that followed--do note the concerted attack on
collective effort made from 1946-1964. The one major collective organization that remained in
1972--the draft-based civilian military--was then disbanded, and nothing has arisen to
replace it. Even the mass politicking that had grown during the 1960s withered to where only
a ghost remains.
An ongoing discourse here at MoA deals with the question of how to get people to
again come together as a collective to create the change that's so badly needed to preserve
our own wellbeing, which is in the collective interest of 330+ million people, as well as
that of the planet's populous. IMO, the answer lies in seizing advantage of the obvious
failure of the unilateral go-it-alone, damn the torpedoes, approach to COVID-19 that
deliberately omitted the needs of 330+ million people and directly threatened their
wellbeing.
If there was ever a teachable moment to educate an entire nation, that time is upon us.
Fortunately, part of the message is already there and just needs to be spread further along
with its associated rationale: Not Me, US! The formula for success isn't Top->Down it's
Bottom->Up since it's decentralized and very hard to defuse.
Dmitry Polyanskiy
@Dpol_un
1/5 Maria #Zakharova: 74 Russian secondary school students had arrived in the US under the
Secondary School Student Program, supervised by the
@StateDept
. Now the programme is being suspended due to the pandemic. The host party does not bear
any responsibility for the children..
2/5 ...and has not even provided the lists and information about their whereabouts.
Russian MFA was not informed of any programmes that involve sending our students to the
US.Their implementation was not coordinated with us, it happened behind the backs of the
Russian authorities
3/5 Back in 2014, Russia was forced to withdraw from the FLEX school exchange programme
supervised by the Department of State. This was due to the inability of the organisers to
guarantee the safe return of Russian children home. We had to stop such events, but
Washington...
4/5 ..did not calm down and began to act in secret. The critical situation has brought
this scam to light. We are currently seeking comprehensive information about our
schoolchildren. We also demanded an explanation as to why the Americans took them from
Russia.
5/5 Implementation of any projects that involve sending minor Russian citizens abroad
without proper coordination with the Russian competent authorities is unacceptable. All
responsibility for the consequences of such fraud lies entirely with those who took the
children there
"... Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com, ..."
"... "Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." ..."
"... , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian Intelligence Services) ..."
Systemic FBI Effort To Legitimize Steele and Use His Information To Target POTUS
Newly declassified footnotes from Department of Justice Inspector General
Michael Horowitz's December FBI report reveals that senior Obama officials, including
members of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team knew the dossier compiled by a former British spy
during the 2016 election was Russian disinformation to target President Donald Trump.
Further, the partially declassified footnotes reveal that those senior intelligence
officials were aware of the disinformation when they included the dossier in the Obama
administration's Intelligence Communities Assessment (ICA).
As important, the footnotes reveal that there had been a request to validate information
collected by British spy Christopher
Steele as far back as 2015, and that there was concern among members of the FBI and
intelligence community about his reliability. Those concerns were brushed aside by members of
the Crossfire Hurricane team in their pursuit against the Trump campaign officials, according
to sources who spoke to this reporter and the footnotes.
The explosive footnotes were partially declassified and made public Wednesday, after a
lengthy review by the Director of National Intelligence Richard
Grenell's office. Grenell sent the letter Wednesday releasing the documents to Sen. Chuck
Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisconsin, both who requested the
declassification.
"Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant
Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." Grenell
consulted with DOJ Attorney General William Barr on the declassification of the
documents.
Grassley and Johnson released a statement late Wednesday stating "as we can see from these
now-declassified footnotes in the IG's report, Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier
before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central
piece of evidence was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation."
"Thanks to Attorney General Barr's and Acting Director Grenell's declassification of the
footnotes, we know the FBI's justification to target an American Citizen was riddled with
significant flaws," the Senator stated. "Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team did
what neither the FBI nor Special Counsel Mueller cared to do: examine and investigate
corruption at the FBI, the sources of the Steele dossier, how it was disseminated, and
reporting that it contained Russian disinformation."
The Footnotes
A U.S. Official familiar with the investigation into the FBI told this reporter that the
footnotes "clearly show that the FBI team was or should have had been aware that the Russian
Intelligence Services was trying to influence Steele's reporting in the summer of 2016, and
that there were some preferences for Hillary; and that this RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]
sourced information being fed to Steele was designed to hurt Trump."
The official noted these new revelations also "undermines the ICA on Russian Interference
and the intent to help Trump. It undermines the FISA warrants and there should not have been a
Mueller investigation."
The footnotes also reveal a startling fact that go against Brennan's assessment that Russia
was vying for Trump, when in fact, the Russians appeared to be hopeful of a Clinton
presidency.
"The FBI received information in June, 2017 which revealed that, among other things, there
were personal and business ties between the sub-source and Steele's Primary Sub-source,
contacts between the sub-source and an individual in the Russian Presidential Administration
in June/July 2016 [redacted] and the sub source voicing strong support for candidate Clinton
in the 2016 U.S. election. The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the FBI did not have a
Section 702 vicarage on any other Steele sub-source."
Steele's Lies
The complete four pages of the partially redacted footnotes paint a clear picture of the
alleged malfeasance committed by former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI James Clapper and
former CIA Director John Brennan, who were all aware of the concerns regarding the information
supplied by former British spy Christopher Steele in the dossier. Steele, who was hired by the
private embattled research firm Fusion GPS, was paid for his work through the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Democratic National Committee. The FBI also paid for Steele's work before ending
its confidential source relationship with him but then used Obama DOJ Official Bruce Ohr as a
go between to continue obtaining information from the former spy.
In footnote 205, for instance, payment documents show that Steele lied about not being a
Confidential Human Source.
"During his time as an FBI CHS, Steele received a total of $95,000 from the FBI," the
footnote states. "We reviewed the FBI paperwork for those payments, each of which required
Steele's Signed acknowledgement. On each document, of which there were eight, was the caption
'CHS payment' and 'CHS Payment Name.' A signature page was missing for one of the
payments."
Footnote 350
In footnote 350, Horowitz describes the questionable Russian disinformation and the FBI's
reliance on the information to target the Trump campaign as an attempt to build a narrative
that campaign officials colluded with Russia. Further, the timeline reveals that Comey, Brennan
and Clapper were aware of the disinformation by Russian intelligence when they briefed then
President-elect Trump in January, 2017 on the Steele dossier.
"[redacted] In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's
frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarchs, we identified
reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [redacted] indicating the potential for
Russian disinformation influencing Steele' election reporting," stated the partially
declassified footnote 350. "A January 12, 2017 report relayed information from [redacted]
outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele's reporting about the activities of
Michael Cohen. The [redacted] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of
Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.
A second report from the same [redacted] five days later stated that a person named in the
limited subset of Steele's reporting had denied representations in the reporting and the
[redacted] assessed that the person's denials were truthful. A USIC report dated February 27,
2017, contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia
who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump's sexual activities in Moscow
during a trip in 2013 were false , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian
Intelligence Services) 'infiltrate[ing] a source into the network' of a [redacted] who
compiled a dossier of that individual on Trump's activities. The [redacted] noted that it had
no information indicating that the individual had special access to RIS activities or
information," according to the partially declassified footnote.
Looming Questions
Another concern regarding Steele's unusual activity is found in footnote 210, which states
"as we discuss in Chapter Six, members of the Crossfire Hurricane Team were unaware of Steele's
connections to Russian Oligarch 1."
The question remains that "Steele's unusual activity with 10 oligarch's led the FBI to seek
a validation review in 2015 but one was not started until 2017," said the U.S. Official to this
reporter. "Why not? Was Crossfire Hurricane aware of these concerns? Was the court made aware
of these concerns? Didn't the numerous notes about sub sources and sources having links or
close ties to Russian intelligence so why didn't this set off alarm bells?"
More alarming, it's clear, Supervisory Intelligence Agent Jonathan Moffa says in June 17,
that he was not aware of reports that Russian Intelligence Services was aware of Steele's
election reporting and influence efforts.
"However, he should have been given the reporting by UCIS" which the U.S. Official says,
goes back to summer 2016.
Footnote 342 makes it clear that "in late January, 2017, a member of the Crossfire Hurricane
team received information [redacted] that RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] may have targeted
Orbis."
AMERICA-HYSTERICA. US Attorney General
Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to
sabotage Trump . All true of course. May we take this as a sign that at last (at last!)
Durham is ready to go with indictments? Or will it prove to be another false alarm? There's
certainly a lot to reveal: A recent
investigation showed that every FISA application (warrant to spy on US citizens) examined
had egregious deficiencies. It's not just Trump.
MEANINGLESSNESS. Remember the Steele dossier? Now it's being spun as Russian
disinformation . So we're now supposed to believe that Putin smeared Trump because he
really wanted Clinton to win? Gosh, that Putin guy is so clever that it's impossible to figure
out what he's doing!
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed
is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.
For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my
brothers.
And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
"... The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative. ..."
"... The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled." ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Even though distracted by the havoc resulting from the coronavirus, the United States and
much of Europe is engaged in a frenzied search for anti-Semitism and anti-Semites so that what
the media and chattering class are regarding as the greatest of all crimes and criminals can
finally be extirpated completely. To be sure, there have recently been some horrific instances
of ethnically or religiously motivated attacks on synagogues and individual Jews, but, as is
often the case, however, quite a lot of the story is either pure spin or politically motivated.
A Jewish student walking on a college campus who walks by protesters objecting to Israel's
behavior can claim to feel threatened and the incident is recorded as anti-Semitism, for
example, and slurs written on the sides of buildings or grave stones, not necessarily the work
of Jew-haters, are similarly categorized. In
one case in Israel in 2017, the two street swastika artists were Jews.
Weaponizing one point of view inevitably limits the ability of contrary views to be heard.
The downside is, of course, that the frenzy that has resulted in the criminalization of free
expression relating in any but a positive way to the activity of Jewish groups. It has also
included the acceptance of the dishonest definition that any criticism of Israel is ipso facto
anti-Semitism, giving that nation a carte blanche in terms of its brutal treatment of its
neighbors and even of its non-Jewish citizens.
Jewish dominated Hollywood and the entertainment media have helped to create the
anti-Semitism frenzy and continue to give the public regular doses of the holocaust story.
Currently there are a number of television shows that depict in one form or another the
persecution of Jews. Hunters on Amazon is about Jewish Americans tracking and killing
suspected former Nazis living in New York City in the 1970s. The Plot to Destroy
America on HBO is a retro history tale about how a Charles Lindbergh/Henry Ford regime
installs a fascist government in the 1930s. One critic describes
the televisual revenge feast "as one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as
the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism."
But, as always, nothing is quite so simple as such a black and white portrayal where there
are evil Nazis and Jewish victims who are always justified when they seek revenge. First of
all, as has been demonstrated ,
many recent so-called anti-Semitic attacks on Jews involve easily recognizable Hasidic Jews and
are actually based on community tensions as established neighborhoods are experiencing dramatic
changes with the newcomers using pressure tactics to force out existing residents. And after
the Hasidim take over a town or neighborhood, they defund local schools to support their own
private academies and frequently engage in large scale welfare and other social services fraud
to permit them to spend all their days studying the Talmud, which, inter alia teaches
that gentiles are no better than beasts fit only to serve Jews.
The recent concentration of coronavirus in Orthodox neighborhoods in New York as well as the
eruption of measles cases last year have been attributed to the unwillingness of some
conservative Jews to submit to vaccinations and normal hygienic practices. They also have
persisted in illegal large gatherings at weddings and religious ceremonies, spreading the
coronavirus within their own communities and also to outsiders with whom they have contact.
Regularly exposing anti-Semitism is regarded as a good thing by many Jewish groups because
the state of perpetual victimization that it supports enables them to obtain special benefits
that might otherwise be considered excessive in a pluralistic democracy. Holocaust education in
schools is now mandatory in many jurisdictions and more than 90% of discretionary Department of
Homeland Security funding goes to Jewish organizations. Jewish organizations are
now lining up to get what they choose to believe is their share of Coronavirus emergency
funding.
Claims of increasing anti-Semitism, and the citation of the so-called holocaust, are like
having a perpetual money machine that regularly disgorges reparations from the Europeans as
well as billions of dollars per year from the U.S. Treasury. Holocaust and anti-Semitism
manufactured guilt are undoubtedly contributing factors to the subservient relationship that
the United States enjoys with the state of Israel, most recently manifested in the U.S.
Department of Defense's gift of one million surgical masks
to the Israel Defense Force in spite of there being a shortage of the masks in the United
States (note how the story
was edited after it first appeared by the Jerusalem Post to conceal the U.S. role
but it still has the original email address and the photo cites the Department of Defense).
And then there is the issue of Jewish power, which is discussed regularly by Jews themselves
but is verboten to gentiles. Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in all the Anglophone
states as well as in France and parts of Eastern Europe and even in Latin America. If
anti-Semitism is as rampant as has often been claimed it is odd that there are so many Jews
prominent in politics and the professions, most especially financial services and the media.
Either anti-Semitism is not really "surging" or the actual anti-Semities have proven to be
particularly incompetent in making their case.
Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents. There has
also been credible speculation that some of the incidents have been false flags staged by the
Israeli government itself, presumably acting through its intelligence services. The objective
would be to create sympathy among the public in Europe and the U.S. for Israel and to
encourage
diaspora emigration to the Jewish state. The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael
Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares
targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative.
Kadar, who holds both Israeli and American nationality, was arrested in Ashkelon
Israel on March 2017 by Israeli police in response to the investigation carried out by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kadar's American address was in New Lenox Illinois but he
actually resided in Israel. Kadar's defense was that he had a brain tumor that caused autism
and was not responsible for his actions, but he was found to be fit for trial and was
sentenced
to 10 years in prison in June 2017. He was apparently subsequently quietly released from
prison and returned to Illinois in
mid-2018. In August 2019 he was
arrested for violation of parole on a firearms and drugs offense.
The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating
hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting
threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and
airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed
that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had
been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make
emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled."
It was also claimed
by the court that Kadar had gotten involved with the so-called restricted access "dark web"
to make threats for money. He reportedly earned $240,000 equivalent worth of the digital
currency Bitcoin. Kadar has reportedly refused to reveal the password to his Bitcoin wallet and
its value is believed to have increased to more than $1 million.
The tale borders on the bizarre and right from the beginning there were
many inconsistencies in both the Department of Justice case and in terms of Kadar's
biography and vital statistics. After his arrest and conviction, many of his public, private
and social networking records were either deleted or changed, suggesting that a high-level
cover-up was underway.
Most significant, the criminal
complaint against Kadar included details of the phone calls that were not at all consistent
with the case that he had acted alone. The threats were made using what is referred to as
spoofing telephone services, used by marketers to hide the caller's true number and identify,
but the three cell phone numbers identified by the Department of Justice to make the spoofed
calls were all U.S.-based and one of them was linked to a Jewish Chabad religious leader and
one to the Church of Scientology's counter-intelligence chief in California. In addition, some
of the calls were made when Kadar was in transit between Illinois and Israel, suggesting that
he had not initiated the calls.
DOJ's criminal complaint also included information that the threat caller was a woman who
had "a distinct speech impediment." Michael Kadar's mother has a distinct speech impediment.
Oddly enough she has not been identified in any public documents and the Israelis claimed that
Michael was disguising his voice, but she is believed to be Dr. Tamar Kadar, who resided in
Ashkelon at the same address as Michael. Dr. Kadar is a chemical weapons researcher at the
Mossad-linked Israel Institute for Biological Research ("IIBR").
Michael appears to have U.S. birthright citizenship because he was born in Bethesda in 1990
while his mother was a visiting researcher at the U.S. Army Military Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). While Dr. Kadar was at USAMRIID, anthrax went missing from the
Army's lab and may have been subsequently used in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks inside the
U.S., which resulted in the deaths of five people. The FBI subsequently accused two USAMRIID
researchers of the theft, but one was exonerated and the other committed suicide, closing the
investigation.
So, there are some interesting issues raised by the Michael Kadar case. First of all, he
appears to have been the fall guy for what may have been a Mossad directed false-flag operation
actually run by his mother, who is herself an expert on biological weapons and works at an
Israeli intelligence lab. Second, the objective of the operation may have been to create an
impression that anti-Semitism is dramatically increasing, which ipso facto generates a
positive perception of Israel and encourages foreign Jews to emigrate to the Jewish state. And
third, there appears to have been a cover-up orchestrated by the Israeli and U.S. governments,
evident in the disappearance of both official and non-official records, while Michael has been
quietly released from prison and is enjoying his payoff of one million dollars in bitcoins. As
always, whenever something involves promoting the interests of the state of Israel, the deeper
one digs the more sordid the tale becomes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
Good piece of work Dr. Giraldi. A few things about this case of the Kadars. Basically Israel
refused to cooperate with the FBI at the beginning and resisted giving up the kid.
Furthermore, the FBI was told to "back off" by higher ups in the agency and let Israel handle
it. So the results are what you would expect with a false flag.
The anthrax case still has legs. Bruce Irvins was the microbiologist at Detrick you are
referring to. He was never charged and they never proved he was involved and the FBI could
not place him in any of the spots they wanted. He had some issues and the FBI gang banged him
looking for a patsy. Dr. Hatfill was the "original" Person of Interest whom the Jewish
controlled media followed around and they ruined his life. He sued the FBI and won a lot of
money.
The FBI appeared to intentionally mess up the anthrax samples. Reviews by the National
Academy of Science rocked the idiots at the FBI and they concluded Irvins was not involved.
The real kicker to all of this is that the FBI leader of the investigation was Robert
Mueller! The same Mueller who spent almost 3 years chasing Russian spies well knowing that it
was lie.
And finally who sealed the files so no one could ever come up with the real perpetrators
..Obama!
Antisemitism is pro-Israel, the Nazis included (shipping jews to Palestine).
For some reason I know exactly what a neonazi looks like, how he behaves, how he talks,
how he thinks and even how he feels. But I never met one. Where does this 'knowledge' come
from?
I happen to remember some television that I have seen as a child. Most people don't and
are living in a fantasy world with fantasy enemies and fantasy friends and take it for
reality.
"Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents."
There have been so many such incidents over the years that when a synagogue or cemetery
gets spray-painted with swastikas, the default presumption for any subsequent investigation
is automatically "inside-job".
The stereotypical perpetrator would tend to be a deranged student residing at the campus
Hillel House, majoring in film studies or some other flakey college program.
Years ago there was a case of a San Francisco synagogue on fire. After the arsonist, a
Jew, was caught and confessed, the tenor of the response was that one had to feel sorry for
him because he needed help.
In light of such incidents there has even been a visual meme out there: Hey Rabbi
Watcha Doin'?! (See Google Images)
Getting a patsy to do the dirty work is significantly more effective in provoking outrage
and sympathy. Though last year's attack on a synagogue in Halle, Germany, during Yom Kippur
services in early October was highly suspicious, media reports managed to suppress those
aspects and instead generated a victimhood-card bonanza that lasted for weeks.
The German population was easily bamboozled. Prominent Jewish representatives publicly
demanded more stringent laws against "anti-semitism", as recently re-defined, and
parliamentarians duly obliged.
News that had not been much reported about, but was circulating at the outset in
alternative media:
• Mentally deranged perpetrator, who had shared his views on an Internet chat group,
expressed his desire to attack Muslims and Antifa.
• Anonymous "handler / minder" in California offered to pay him half a bitcoin to
redirect his attack toward the synagogue instead.
• Synagogue had just recently been equipped with elaborate security system installed
by Israeli company to withstand shooting and bombing attacks.
• Local police, which normally would provide security outside, during holiday
services, were conspicuously absent during that time, and slow to respond (likely stand-down
orders from above).
• Perpetrator filmed his rampage, which he broadcast in real-time as a live stream
video online (wanting to emulate an earlier attack in New Zealand), enabling his handlers to
monitor the shooting spree while in progress.
• After his mission failed, frustrated perpetrator "spilled the beans" in real-time
and cussed out the Californian bitcoin payer, who had apparently set him up to be framed, as
probably being a Jew.
Of course, by design, the securely locked synagogue door easily withstood the shooting
attack with multiple exterior bullet holes into its wooden exterior. Everybody in the world
probably saw that part.
I was born in Argentina, 1950. There was a populist nationalist government then, strongly
disliked by the US. It included a whole spectrum, right to left. It assisted together with
the Vatican the rescuing of Nazi criminals that settled in the country. There was an
antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly for name. Jews emigrated
to Israel. In the 80s he made public he was a Mossad agent
@vot
tak How can Jews be a 'colonial occupation force' in any nation that is English-speaking
and has not totally rejected the political and cultural heritage of WASP Empire?
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. When the Anglo-Saxon Puritans won their
revolution, they cemented Modern English culture as one twined with Jewish ideas and ideals.
Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell cemented that doubly by allying with Jewish bankers on the
Continent. From the mid-1600s, Jews have been the defining bankers of English Empire, of WASP
Empire. And bankers are always the opposite of outsiders. Bankers own and eventually come to
control fully.
Anglo-Zionist Empire has existed since at least Oliver Cromwell.
As in the case of the Mossad asset Jeff Epstein, who was running a child-rape assembly line
on his 'Orgy Island' and on his 'Lolita Express,' to ensnare weakling politicians,
video-taping them in the process of raping young girls–and boys–then use that to
blackmail them into becoming an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, the one lead that was never
pursued was, "How many other Epstein's are out there, doing their slimy business for Israel?"
The same could be asked of this 'Mikey' Kadar terrorist, who I'm sure has plenty of
accomplices world-wide, still phoning in threats or maybe spray-painting Jew cemeteries with
the dreaded Nazi Swastika.
This terrorist does about one year in prison, then is set free and off to the USA he runs?
If his name had been Mohammed or he was a skin-headed nationalist, he'd be in prison for the
rest of his life, but since he's from that class of those Chosen by G-d, he gets a
pass.
There was an antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly
Very interesting information. I did a quick search and the only info I found was this wiki
entry in Spanish.
I used google translate to convert to English.
Do you have any sources that confirm his alleged affiliation with Mossad?
[Hide MORE]
From a young age he was a member of the Nationalist Liberation Alliance. Until then, it
was led by Juan Queraltó and had a clear anti-Semitic profile that Kelly fought
against. The group went on to become a shock force of Peronism.
During the bombing of Plaza de Mayo, when a group of military personnel opposed to the
government of Juan Domingo Perón attempted to assassinate him and carry out a coup
d'état, several squadrons of aircraft belonging to Naval Aviation, bombarded and
machine-gunned them with anti-aircraft ammunition, Plaza de Mayo and the Casa Rosada, as well
as the CGT building, Kelly, aided by the Nationalist Liberation Alliance, dueled with the
Marines responsible for the attack. [2]
After the self-proclaimed liberating revolution dictatorship was established, after a
bombardment of the headquarters of his organization, located in San Martín and
Corrientes Avenue in Buenos Aires. On September 21, the coup armed forces received from
Córdoba the order to eliminate that focus of resistance in the heart of the city of
Buenos Aires and advanced on it with cannons and two Sherman tanks, sending an emissary to
surrender. The cannons and tanks fired and some fifty men, led by Guillermo Patricio Kelly,
surrendered. Those who remained inside died under the rubble of the three-story building,
destroyed with gunshots. The number of deaths that some raise to more than 400 is unknown.
[3] After that, he was arrested by the dictatorship and transferred to the Río
Gallegos prison, where one night in 1957 he starred in a film escape along with John William
Cooke, Jorge Antonio and Héctor Cámpora and other political prisoners managed
to escape, after which he applied for political asylum in Chile, but this was denied. When he
was about to be sent to Argentina, he escaped again, this time dressed as a woman, [required
appointment] to Venezuela where Perón was. When he left Chile for Caracas, he used a
new identity: he was "Doctor Vargas, psychoanalyst".
When on January 26, 1958, the newspaper El Nacional titled "Perón led the
repression against the Venezuelan people," he identified him, along with Kelly, as "National
Security torture consultants" and published Perón's fraternal letters to the head of
that body.
When the revolution broke out in Venezuela, Perón was another of the insurgents'
objectives, along with his collaborators, among whom was Kelly, and they had to take refuge
in the Embassy of the Dominican Republic. Outside, more than a thousand people were shaking
the entrance gate. They had already been locked up for two days, and people were still
outside. All the Argentines looked askance at Kelly. "They are going to kill us all because
of this one," they growled. There were several who wanted to kick him out and someone raised
the motion: to vote if he should withdraw. It was not necessary: Kelly decided
to face up. He only asked for two conditions: that he be given a pair of dark glasses and a
hat. He also asked for silver. When he walked out of the embassy and mixed with the crowd, no
one could recognize him. In the midst of the seizure, Kelly made contact with two CIA agents:
-- The Communists are going to enter the embassy and they are going to kill Perón. And
if they kill him, the entire continent is communicated – he warned them. Finally, the
United States prepared to rescue him, interceding with the revolutionary government to clear
the area and facilitate his departure to the Dominican Republic. [4]
Kelly was stoned from the Caracas airport, obtained refuge in Haiti and, after a turbulent
stay in which he was imprisoned, [5] crossed the border to the Dominican Republic, where he
remained for a few days. He returned to Argentina in 1958 with the passport that he stole
from Roberto Galán and after six months he was arrested and transferred again to the
Ushuaia prison. [6]
Throughout his life he was imprisoned for almost eight years. In 1966 he occupied the
headquarters of the PJ National Coordinating Board for a few hours, from where he launched a
violent proclamation against union leader Augusto Vandor. [appointment required]
In 1981, in the midst of a military dictatorship, he denounced the theft of $ 60 million
from Argentina, 10% of that debt belonging to General Suárez Mason, considering him a
"murderer of the people." According to Kelly, Mason is involved in the YPF emptying in the
1980s. He also said that the military man worked as a mercenary training mercenary troops to
fight in the Caribbean, which received money from the Nord high command, who was accused of
murdering the brother and two nephews of former President Arturo Frondizi. Also involved in
this robbery was former judge Pedro Narvaez who fled to Rio de Janeiro and then to Spain. [7]
[8]
In 1983, he gained notoriety after formulating a series of complaints related to the P-2
Lodge, the YPF dismissal and the murder of Fernando Branca, in addition to filing a criminal
complaint against Emilio Massera. Shortly thereafter, in August of that year, Kelly was
kidnapped and severely beaten by a gang led by Aníbal Gordon, who claimed to have
acted on the orders of the last military dictator Reynaldo Bignone and the Army Corps I.
In 1991, during the presidency of Carlos Menem, he was the host of an ATC program called
Sin Concesiones, in which he maintained that it would reveal "where the children of the
´Noble Ladies´ come from", alluding to the children adopted by the director from
the Clarín newspaper, Ernestina Herrera de Noble. After a meeting between Herrera de
Noble, Héctor Magnetto and Carlos Menem held at the Quinta de Olivos on Thursday, May
2, 1991, Clarín and the government agreed on Kelly's air release at ATC in exchange
for the air output of the program of the journalist Liliana López Foresi, Magazine 13,
Journalism with an opinion, in which Menem was severely criticized. [9] [10] [11] [12]
On the subject of Herrera de Noble's children, Kelly wrote a book published by Arkel
Publishing in 1993 titled Noble: Imperio Corrupto. Only 200 copies were published, although
the author gave several of them to public libraries in the United States. [13]
He died on July 1, 2005 at 8:30 am, a victim of terminal cancer at the German Hospital in
the City of Buenos Aires. [14] [15]
Very much so. Because it helps direct our attention to something very important.
Though they're good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, destruction and death, they're
no good at social-managment.
Who's "they"?
I refer to them as Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI).
It's a distinction worth making because it separates them from Jews who don't hate Whites
and aren't obsessed with being Jewish.
They're out there, however small their numbers might be.
After all, Gilad Atzmon's not the only one.
It's also worth pointing out that JSI gets lots of help from three other groups who aren't
Jewish at all. In fact they're White.
1. the cynical, self-centered whores of opportunity who will do anything to protect their
own materialistic, narcissistic trough.
2. the incurably gullible, pathologically naive Whites from Left-wingy Multi-Culties to
Right-wing Christian Zionists.
3. the perfectly indifferent who walk around with that stroked out look on their face from
watching too much ESPN and Pornhub.
The rest of us are freedom-lovers, or TUR readers/commenters or potential TUR
readers/commenters.
Meaning they'd be open to what the actual readers/commenters have to say and won't fly off
the handle with a knee-jerk reaction before springing into fight or flight mode.
In short, this boils down to a battle of
Dogma versus Pragma
.
What's the difference?
Pragma is open to exposing its ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction
for the purpose of improving the quality of its social-management
Excuse me, but this is comical. There is no other group in America and the entire West who
are more protected and more privileged than Jews. While White Gentiles are routinely
attacked, beaten to a pulp, raped, and brutally murdered by Blacks, Hispanics, Pakis, Arabs,
in Europe and America, just for having the temerity to walk outside in countries built by
their White ancestors. How does a painted swastika equate with rape-torture murders of the
Christian-Newsom Knoxville Horror? And if you think the Christian-Newsom murders are a rare
crime in America, you are living under a rock. And lest we forget the Christian-Newsom
Murders nor the Wichita Massacre murders were labeled "hate crimes." Despite thousands upon
thousands of Black on White and other nonwhite on White attacks, rapes, murders in this
country, you can bet the house that no one in Washington has voiced concerns over the
violence being perpetrated on White Gentiles daily in America. America is indeed a racist
country and Whites experience that racism every single day.
Remember a couple years ago when someone was calling bomb threats to Jewish Community
Centers? Remember that they found out it was some Jewish guy in a Tel Aviv basement calling
in the bomb threats. Of course at first the (((media))) went through their spiel about how
anti-Semitism was on the rise in America, and then once we all found out that the perpetrator
was a Jewish guy in Israel, ( I believe a dual citizen at that) the (((media))) dropped this
case quicker than you could claim some NY/NJ rabbis were selling body organs.
Most of these hate crime HOAXES are simply Jews and/or Blacks drawing swastikas, hanging a
nooses in a locker, or some other ridiculous and downright childish act that in no way even
if done by a White racist who hates Jews and Blacks, equates to a Mississippi girl named
Jessica Chambers being burned alive, a 12 year old white male being burned alive with a blow
torch by an adult black female in Texas, etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that "hate
crimes" against nonwhites and Jews are downright rare in America, ( not talking about HOAXES
here) and there is no way that a crayon drawing of a swastika or hanging a noose in someone's
locker can be linked as the same as someone dying a horrific and brutal death like the White
victims I listed. IF we lived in a TRULY just and decent country, EVERYONE out there,
regardless of color, creed or religion would recognize that we need to stop all the hate and
violence directed at White Gentiles before moving on to worrying about crayon drawings.
Remember when Noel Ignatiev the Jewish professor stated we need to "abolish Whiteness?" Now
imagine a White professor stating that we need to "abolish Jewishness in America?" Can you
imagine what would have happened to that guy? Is it possible for a Jew in America/Canada or
Europe to be fired from his or here job for making racist or inflammatory remarks about
Whites?
The story of Michael Kadar is reminiscent of the tale of another criminal young male with
dual Israeli US citizenship, Samuel Sheinbein.
Sheinbein and a colleague murdered, dismembered and burnt a fellow high school classmate,
the hispanic Fredo Enrique Tello, Jr., in September, 1997. Sheinbein fled to Israel and in a
long drawn out court battle, Sheinbein's requested extradition to the State of Maryland to
stand trial was refused by Israel's supreme court.
You can read the whole sordid story in Wikipedia including how Sheinbaum was killed in a
shootout with the guards who were escorting him from one prison to another.
@Jake
Here we go with the WASP thing again. A minority of descendants of the Angles were Puritans,
and even fewer Saxons were Puritans. There were also Norse Puritans, Norman Puritans and
Briton Puritans. All Puritans were minorities. Many "Protestant" Churches, including the
Anglican Church, considered Puritans dissenters, verging on heretics, and not really
Protestants beyond protesting the Church of Rome. Knox's Presbyterians had a lot in common
with Puritans as did Dutch Protestants, and there were a lot of Dutch who moved to East
Anglia. Some became Puritans. It's silly to refer to it at it being "Anglo-Saxon Puritans" as
not all were Angles or Saxons. They were Puritans who happened to be Angles, Saxons and
others. WASP is even sillier. Are there Brown, Yellow, or Red Anglo-Saxons?
Cromwell seized power because the Stuarts were unpopular for many reasons, and as with
every revolution, a minority with zealotry seizes power from an apathetic majority. Sure he
turned to the Jewish Amsterdam bankers, who were already funding the Dutch Empire, including
New Amsterdam, but who else would have helped? The Puritans were vehemently anti Catholic and
would have never turned there. They were also vehemently anti-Muslim, so the Ottomans were
out. The Jews were it by elimination.
As for the culture. The culture of the elite is seldom the culture of the general
population.
The "Anglo-Saxons" were more than happy to restore the Stuarts after Cromwell, as long as
they were Protestants. The installation of King Billy, replacing James, was due to James
having converted to Catholicism and the fear of his imposing it on the country.
It was under William and Mary that the newly, created by Parliament, Bank of England was
taken over by Jewish bankers. The same minority Puritan Parliament that restored the Stuarts
and sponsored the overthrow of James.
I've said some stupid things in my time, but up there with the best of them was a comment I
uttered to my wife on the morning of Tuesday 6 th March 2018. The previous night the
news had broken that an ex-spy by the name of Sergei Skripal had apparently been one of two
people hospitalised on the Sunday afternoon on a bench in The Maltings in Salisbury. At that
time the opioid, Fentanyl, was thought to be connected to it. Was this about to be a huge
international story? Or was it going to soon be forgotten about? I was decidedly of the latter
opinion. "Don't worry," I told her. "Probably just a drug overdose. It'll soon blow
over."
Two years later
Actually, two years on and most people have pretty much forgotten about it. Yes, they
remember that it happened; yes, they remember that it was a mighty odd occurrence with a number
of peculiarities about it; and for the people of Salisbury, I'm quite sure they will recall the
police, the cordons, the helicopters, the place swarming with international media, and of
course let's not forget the baby wipes. But by and large, it happened, it's done with, and the
case was solved a long while ago.
Except that it wasn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is that two of
the many Russians who were in Salisbury on 3 rd and 4 th March, and who
were charged with the incident -- Petrov and Boshirov -- have never been charged with the
subsequent incident in Amesbury. This is very important. If the British authorities' case
against the two men in Salisbury is to be believed, there must be a clear link between them and
the second case in Amesbury. And yet it is impossible to reasonably connect the two cases based
on the British authorities' explanation of the Salisbury event. Unless, that is, you believe
that the two suspects were carrying a cellophane-wrapping machine with them with which to wrap
the bottle of lethal nerve agent they had apparently just used before dumping it in a bin. But
nobody could be daft enough to believe that, could they? Which leads to the question: if the
cases cannot be linked using the British authorities' explanation of the first incident --
which they can't (hence the reason the two men have not been charged for the second) -- then
how can we accept their explanation for the first? The answer is that we cannot, and for a
whole host of reasons, as I hope to show in a moment.
For those who have accepted The Met's and Government's account of the case, I am struck by a
couple of things. Firstly, their claims that those who haven't accepted it are conspiracy
theorists is really quite funny when you begin to count the number of absurd, implausible and
sometimes downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept that official account
(of which more below). But secondly, I am struck by their remarkable apathy and complacency,
given what they claim to believe. Let me put it this way: if I truly believed that agents of a
foreign power had come to my country and had entered my home city carrying, using and
discarding enough deadly nerve agent to kill thousands of people in my neighbourhood, I would
not only be livid at that foreign Government; I would be absolutely furious with the British
authorities for their pathetic, feeble response. Two dozen diplomats expelled in response to
the use of the (apparently) deadliest nerve agent known to man, which could have wiped out half
the population of Salisbury? It's the equivalent of sentencing an attempted murderer to a
£100 fine. Of course, while I accept that a declaration of war in response to such a
reckless act would have been a step too far, given that Russia is a nuclear-armed country with
a hugely powerful military, I would certainly want a response that was far closer to that than
the paltry expelling of a few diplomats. However, the fact that those who bark the loudest
about the alleged use of a nerve agent that could have killed 10,000 people are prepared to
accept the expulsion of a few diplomats as an adequate response, suggests that many of them are
not nearly as convinced as they make out that a lethal nerve agent was indeed used.
Either that or they're just a bit wet!
I am, however, livid at the British authorities for an entirely different reason. And
it is this: I really don't like being lied to. I really don't like handing over hard-earned
money in taxation, only to see it squandered away by people who devise the most elaborate
deceptions to divert attention away from what really happened. Nothing personal, you
understand. I don't like the fact that anyone has their hard-earned cash frittered away in this
way.
That's a big claim I just made. Elaborate deceptions are not accusations I bandy about
lightly. But as I hope to show below, I can see no other explanation for the many absurdities,
implausibilities and downright impossibilities in the case put forward by the Government and
Metropolitan Police (The Met) for what took place in Salisbury.
Let's begin with the case against the two Russians who have been charged over the Salisbury
incident. Whenever I have been involved in a discussion on this case with folks on Twitter,
invariably someone pops up to say that the case is closed, and the guilt of this pair has been
shown to be true. Incontrovertibly. Yet when examined carefully, the evidence of the apparent
guilt of this pair turns out to be incredibly threadbare. There are three basic parts to
it:
That they were in the vicinity of Mr Skripal's house on 4 th March, as seen on
footage taken outside a Shell garage on Salisbury's Wilton Road That "Novichok" was found in
the hotel room they stayed in the night before That they were/are agents of the GU (Russian
military police)
On that first point, the fact is that the Shell garage is approximately 500 yards from 47
Christie Miller Road. Whilst this may be "in the vicinity" in a very general sense, it is
nothing like "the vicinity" that would be needed to convince a juror that they actually went
there, much less that they daubed the door handle with a substance, and needless to say, one
cannot simply daub a door handle from 500 yards away.
Furthermore, in the footage shown of them, they were seen walking on the opposite side of
the road to the two routes (a path or a road) which they would have to have taken to reach the
house. If I had been going to Christie Miller Road along that route, I would either have
crossed the road before then, or I would have crossed at the small traffic island opposite the
garage, which can just be seen on the footage. Yet they did not appear to cross or to be about
to cross.
However, there is more. Although The Met showed these few seconds from this camera, what
they failed to inform the public is that there is a second camera just after the first, one
which does cover both routes to chez Skripal. And so if the men had taken either of
these routes that they would have needed to take to get to Christie Miller Road, this second
camera would have shown it. Why was it not shown then? That's probably more a question for The
Met than for me, but if I was a juror in the case, I should most definitely want to see the
footage from that second camera in order to confirm or deny whether they did indeed cross the
road to use those routes. In short: the footage from the first camera is certainly not proof
that they actually went to Mr Skripal's house; the refusal to use footage from the second
camera casts serious doubts that they did.
And of course given who Mr Skripal was, his house and front door would have been covered by
CCTV. In which case, if the men actually did go there, The Met could show it. But they never
have.
The second point is even flimsier. It was claimed that the tiniest trace of "Novichok" was
found in the hotel room they were staying in. However, a second swab apparently turned up
nothing. In other words, you need to trust The Met and Porton Down on this. Right? Er no.
Firstly, we are talking about the same people that allegedly found the "Novichok" at the
beginning of May 2018, yet failed to inform the hotel owner until September of that year of
their finding in his hotel (I'm not into suing, but he should have sued). Not only this, but
they also failed to trace those who had stayed at the hotel from 4th March to May. Not exactly
convincing, is it?
But in any case, the idea is self-evidently ludicrous. Why would there have been a tiny
trace of the stuff in the hotel room? If there was a leak, why wasn't the hotel closed, and the
trains the men travelled on decontaminated? Or are we supposed to believe that the guys took it
out to have a sniff the night before, and spilled just enough for one, but not two swabs? Yep,
that's what we're asked to believe. Fine, believe it, if it gives you pleasure. But to those
with more discerning minds, it does sound suspiciously like a detail made up by people who make
stuff up, doesn't it?
The third point -- that the two suspects were agents of the GU (Russian military
intelligence) -- is by far the most serious. I accept that they probably were, although I do so
with the caveat that one of the most strikingly odd things about this case is that this has
never been officially confirmed. Sure, an organisation that rhymes with Smellingrat has
stated this, and so too have numerous politicians, but it has not actually been stated on the
official charges against them. To this day, the Crown Prosecution Service's charges against
them still use their apparent pseudonyms -- Petrov and Boshirov -- and do not mention their
apparent true identities. I find that very odd.
Nonetheless, as I say I accept that they probably were agents of Russian Military
Intelligence. It is this which is enough for many to confirm their guilt as attempted
assassins. Well, if their actions comported with how military intelligence officers on
assassination missions act, I would be inclined to agree. But they don't. Not even remotely.
There is nothing about their actions, as shown by The Met, that in any way convince that they
were on a state-sanctioned assassination mission. They travelled together. They operated in
broad daylight. They made no attempt to evade detection by CCTV. They cavorted with a
prostitute the night before. They smoked dope and attracted attention in their hotel room the
night before. After allegedly finishing their top-secret mission, they strolled into town. They
took pictures. They went window shopping. Nerve agent assassins? I think not!
"Oh," comes the scoffing reply, "so you believe their story about being tourists come to
see the cathedral and Old Sarum? Idiot."
"No," comes my equally scoffing reply. "Why should I? But why would I limit myself to two
possibilities -- tourists or deadly assassins -- neither of which actually fit their actions?
Have we not imagination enough to think of more than two options? Goodness, what do they
teach them in these schools!?"
How about this: Yes, they were in Salisbury on a mission from the Russian state, but no it
was not an assassination attempt -- not unless Vladimir Putin has taken to employing muppets to
carry out highly sensitive and dangerous missions of the Russian state. But seriously, does he
strike you as someone who would tend to give the most highly sensitive missions to a couple of
pot-smoking, prostitute-cavorting, picture-snapping, CCTV-friendly, window-shopping dudes?
Hardly!
Yet they were almost certainly doing something there other than tourism, as they claimed,
and my guess is that it was connected to where they went on the Saturday 3 rd March,
which The Met laughably tried to tell us was a reconnaissance mission to check out Mr Skripal's
house. A reconnaissance mission? Ha ha! Reminder: this is Salisbury, not Afghanistan or Idlib.
You can walk about unhindered, unmolested, and you can even locate 47 Christie Miller Road
using Google Maps. So why would they have needed to do reconnaissance on a house that they
allegedly walked up to in broad daylight the following day?
But even more than this, if they went to check out the house on the Saturday, why did they
not daub the door handle then? The Skripals were out at the time. It would have been the ideal
time to do it, if that was what they were intending. But no, The Met wants you to believe that
they came to Salisbury, secretly made their way to Mr Skripal's house, saw it, noted that no
one was at home, decided not to "Novichok" the door handle there and then, but instead go back
to London (where they had apparently left their "Novichok" all day long in their hotel room),
and come back the following day to do it when -- according to The Met -- the Skripals were at
home and their car in the drive!
It really is such an utterly stupid and preposterous proposition, that I have no doubt this
is why The Met decided to give no timeline of where and when they went in Salisbury on the
Saturday; to present no footage; and to show no pictures, save for one at the train station.
For had they shown such footage, I am quite sure that far from it showing them going out of
the town towards Mr Skripal's house for reconnaissance, it would show them going into
town for reconnaissance, probably near The Mill pub and the Maltings, where the following
day they just happened to be in the vicinity of the Skripals at about 1:45 -- far closer than
the Shell garage footage shows them in the vicinity of the house.
None of the above evidence would pass muster in a courtroom. It is flimsy, it's pathetic and
it's full of holes.
But talking of holes, let's now set this all in the context of the entire story presented by
The Met and the Government. I mentioned above the number of absurd, implausible and sometimes
downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept their account. Below, I've
recounted 40 of the most glaring, although I'm sure regular readers here can think of many,
many more. In case of doubt, I have annexed a comment next to each point, depending on whether
it fits into the absurd, implausible or impossible category, although I understand that some
readers may well think it remiss of me not to have given some of them more than one of those
descriptions:
That two men put themselves and everyone on their flight in jeopardy, by
boarding a plane with at least one, possibly two, bottles of the World's Deadliest Nerve Agent
(WDNA) in their luggage. (ABSURD) That the two suspects dropped an unused package of the
WDNA in a bin somewhere, whilst taking the used bottle of nerve agent back to Moscow with them.
(ABSURD) Or alternatively, that they only had one package of WDNA with them, but brought
a cellophane wrapping machine to Salisbury to wrap the used box up in, before discarding it.
(ABSURD) That the two men sprayed WDNA in an open space, without wearing any protective
clothing. (ABSURD) That after they had done this, rather than legging it, they decided
to spend an hour in the city centre window-shopping and taking pictures. (ABSURD) That
Mr Skripal and his daughter both somehow managed to touch the door handle of his front door on
their way out (try it with someone next time you exit your house). (IMPLAUSIBLE) That
despite being contaminated with WDNA, they showed no effects for hours afterwards.
(IMPLAUSIBLE) That when they did show effects hours later, it was at precisely the same time,
despite their very different heights, weights and metabolisms. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite being
contaminated with WDNA, they went into town, fed ducks, went for a meal, then went to a pub for
a drink. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite having hands contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal
handed a piece of bread to a local boy who ate it without becoming contaminated. (IMPLAUSIBLE)
That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed to
contaminate the table in Zizzis, but not the door or door handle on the way in. (IMPLAUSIBLE)
That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed not to
contaminate the manager of Zizzis when he shook hands with him (confirmed to me by a local
source). (IMPLAUSIBLE) That after becoming extremely aggressive in Zizzis, which some assume
was the effects of poisoning with WDNA, Mr Skripal wolfed down a plate of seafood
risotto before sauntering over to the pub for a drink. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That no CCTV of Mr Skripal
or his daughter on 4 th March could be shown to the public to jog their memories,
because of something called "National Security". (ABSURD) That no CCTV could be shown of The
Maltings, on the grounds of National Security, even though according to the official story no
crime took place there. (ABSURD) That the Russian couple who were filmed on CCTV camera at
15:47 in Market Walk (confirmed by a reliable source in the comment section on this blog), were
not in any way connected with the case. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the only CCTV the public were
allowed to see of this pair was an absurd, blurred, fuzzy image taken second hand on a mobile
phone, when they could have shown crystal clear footage from the CCTV camera at the other end
of Market Walk. (ABSURD) That the Skripals were somehow in Zizzis at the same time that they
were actually in the Mill pub (The Met's timeline shows them to have been in Zizzis from 14:20
and 15:35,
which is demonstrably untrue ). (IMPOSSIBLE) That the Metropolitan Police are unable to put
out correct timelines. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That WDNA deteriorated so much after an hour on a door
handle, that it was too weak to kill the Skripals. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That this same WDNA, which
allegedly deteriorated in an hour, was then found three weeks later after exposure to the
elements and after being touched by many human hands, to be in a state of "high purity,
persistent and weather resistant". (IMPOSSIBLE) That WDNA, which was allegedly sprayed on a
door handle, somehow managed to spread to the roof of the house, meaning that it had to be
replaced. (IMPOSSIBLE) Yet that same WDNA, 2mg of which is apparently enough to kill a person
(according to BBC Panorama), and which causes whole roofs to have to be replaced and cars to be
destroyed, can be cleansed by members of the public using baby wipes. (ABSURD) That the police
cars which attended the Maltings needed to be destroyed, yet the ones that attended Mr
Skripal's house, where the poison was apparently most concentrated, did not. (ABSURD) That
Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey managed to be a first responder at the bench when the two
Russians were on it, at the same time as not being at the bench when the two Russians were on
it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That Mr Bailey entered Mr Skripal's house via the back door, because he
couldn't open the front door; but also managed to enter the house via the front door because he
was able to open it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That he was wearing a forensic suit to enter the house of
someone who had apparently overdosed in a park on Fentanyl. (ABSURD) That he managed to get
contaminated by WDNA despite wearing a forensic suit. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the numerous police
officers not wearing forensic suits, who went in and out of the house on 4 th and 5
th March, did not become contaminated by WDNA, even though it was allegedly found to
be most concentrated there three weeks later, and in a state of "high purity". (IMPOSSIBLE)
That the police somehow managed to miss all four of Mr Skripal's pets (two cats and two guinea
pigs), so leaving them to starve to death. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That an air ambulance was called for
what looked like a drug overdose on a park bench, when a land ambulance can get to the hospital
just as quickly, if not quicker given where the helicopter had to land. (ABSURD) That the chief
nurse of the British Army just happened to be shopping near the bench when the two Russians
were on it. (ABSURD) That there just happened to be two Porton Down trained doctors at
Salisbury District Hospital. (ABSURD) That despite The Met, the Government and the media
referring to the substance used as "Novichok", in their only official statement to a court of
law, Porton Down were unable to confirm this, instead referring to it as "a nerve agent or
related compound" and "a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." (ABSURD) That
Porton Down were able to identify a substance within 36 hours that apparently no other country
on earth makes, has made, or can make. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That "Novichok" can only be made in
Russia, despite variants of it having been synthesised or stocked in numerous countries
including Czechia, Sweden, Germany, Iran, the US, and Britain (Boris Johnson having unwittingly
confirmed this when he blurted out that they had samples of it at Porton Down). (IMPOSSIBLE)
That after she and her father were allegedly poisoned by the Russian state, Yulia Skripal said
she wanted to return there. (ABSURD) That Mr Skripal and his daughter have never been seen
together since -- not even in a single photo. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That nothing has ever been heard
from Mr Skripal since (national security won't wash – his daughter was able to appear in
a video). (ABSURD) That Salisbury had its first case of Fentanyl poisoning on the same day, at
the same time, and in the same shopping centre apparently involving another couple.
(IMPLAUSIBLE)
Remember, this list of the absurd, the implausible, and the downright impossible is not a
bunch of lunacy that I or anyone else looking into the case has concocted. No, they are
things that the Government of Great Britain, and The Metropolitan Police have concocted. It's
their story, not mine, and I'm just pointing it out and saying, "Hey, come look at this. No
clothes and all that!" That being said, it is of course those who point out this absurd,
implausible and impossible folly who are called conspiracy theorists by the keepers of the
narrative and their devotees, which is rather like being called a scruffbag by Dominic
Cummings. But no matter, better to be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out patent
absurdities and things which are impossible than to be a Believer in Patent Absurdities and
Impossible Things.
Speculation Corner
Having cleared that Stuff and Nonsense out of the way, what did happen on 4 th
March 2018 in Salisbury? I am bound to disappoint people looking for the answer, as I simply
don't know. I don't know because the keepers of the keys of the Stuff and Nonsense have not
only done their utmost to keep the truth away from the light (such as refusing to release even
a jot of CCTV footage of the Skripals that day), but the sheer number of absurdities and
conflicting stories they have put out make it impossible for those watching from afar to be
sure about which things happened on that day, and which things were subsequently added to
obscure the truth. All we can say, for sure, is what didn't happen (see above).
Nevertheless, there are a couple of big clues that allow us to speculate as to something of
the nature of the thing. These are The Mill Pub and Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey. They
are not clues in the sense of us being able to know what role they played. But they are clues
in the sense of the authorities never being able to come out with a straight answer about the
location and the man, thereby giving rise to speculation that the bizarre and conflicting tales
about them are extremely important.
Take Mr Bailey, for instance. Where exactly was he on that evening and where exactly did he
succumb to poisoning? As hinted at above, he has been placed in multiple places, depending on
who has been telling the story and when they've been telling it. He has been:
A first
responder to the incident at the bench Not a first responder to the incident at the bench Not
at the bench when the two Russians were there At the bench after the incident happened At the
house at midnight entering by the front door At the house at midnight but unable to enter the
front door Admitted to Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning Not admitted to
Salisbury District hospital on the Monday morning, but on the Tuesday Morning Admitted to
Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning, discharged but readmitted on the Tuesday
How can it have been so difficult to establish where he was? His movements would have been
easy to trace. Why were they not and why have so many different stories been mooted? As I wrote
back
here :
"I would submit that the most reasonable view to take -- until evidence confirms otherwise
-- is that Detective Sergeant Bailey was poisoned neither at the bench nor the house, but
somewhere else altogether."
Actually, I think that there is some evidence for this. Here is what a
Freedom of Information request revealed about how The Met were to deal with questions posed
by the media about Mr Bailey. Note that this was on 9 th March, two weeks before the
door handle claim was first made:
"IF ASKED: Why was a detective sergeant (Nick Bailey) a first responder?
ANSWER: He attended the initial scene in the town centre.
IF ASKED: It's been suggested DS Bailey was contaminated at Skripal's house. Did he go to
the house? Can you confirm he definitely went to the Maltings?
ANSWER: He was a first responder to the initial scene in the town centre. We are
not discussing further [my italics]."
So he was a first responder to the "initial scene" in the town centre. Okay, but according
to Mr Bailey himself, on the BBC Panorama Programme, he was not a first responder at the bench
when the Russian pair were there. He claimed to have wandered down there sometime after it had
all finished, which means that he was not a first responder at that scene. Which means what?
It means thatthere was another scene . That is implied in the phrase "initial
scene". Clearly, if there was an initial scene, there must have also been a subsequent scene.
And equally clearly, it cannot have been anything to do with the house or the door handle,
because on 9 th March, when this instruction was given, there was officially only
one scene -- that is, the bench. The door handle story had not yet emerged.
Put all that together and what is the inescapable conclusion? Mr Bailey was indeed injured,
but it was at an initial scene -- that is at a scene that occurred prior to whatever
happened at the bench .
Let's come back to that after looking at the other big clue, The Mill. In the aftermath of 4
th March, the back of the Mill was closed off and the chaps in HazMats were busy
doing their thing there. But hang on a minute. Why was this? That area was never any part of
the official story. There was never any suggestion whatsoever that Mr Skripal or his daughter
had been there, and so why would it have needed cleaning up? From what?
In addition, we know that the then Manager of the Mill, Greg Townsend was interviewed
intensively by investigators from The Met, no less than eight times in the week after 4
th March. According to Mr Townsend, he felt like he was being treated as "
a terror suspect ". Again, why? According to the official story, what did Mr Skripal and
his daughter do there? They went in. They had a drink. They left. Big deal. Why on earth would
the most intense questioning and focus be at that location then?
But thirdly, and most crucially, is the incorrect timeline put out by The Met about the
Skripals' visit to this pub. Here's what they said:
13:40 – Sergei and Yulia arrive at the Sainsbury's upper level car park in The
Maltings
The pair go to The Mill pub in Salisbury
Approximately 14.20 – The father and daughter eat at Zizzi restaurant on Castle
Street
15:35 – They leave the restaurant
This is simply wrong. They did not go to The Mill pub before Zizzis. They went to Zizzis
between about 2:00pm and 2:45pm, and then on to the Mill from around 3:00pm to 3:30pm. Every
single one of the original witness statements in the early days of the case confirms this, and
I have also had independent corroboration locally that this was the case (
see here for details ). So why did The Met put out a timeline saying that the Skripals were
in Zizzis between 3:00pm and 3:30pm, when in fact they were in The Mill? Unfortunately, the
only conclusion I can draw from this is that it was done deliberately, with the purpose of
drawing attention away from that location as being the place the Skripals visited before the
bench incident.
Put that together with the oddities around the location of the poisoning of Detective
Sergeant Nicholas Bailey, and it seems to me -- and I admit this is highly speculative -- that
there was an incident prior to the bench incident, that it most probably occurred at the back
of The Mill, and it was there -- not the bench or the house -- that Mr Bailey became
contaminated. Let me stress that this is speculation, and it may well be incorrect, yet it
seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for the extremely strange ambiguity
surrounding Mr Bailey's movements, the claim that he was injured as a first responder to "the
initial scene", and the bait and switch between Zizzis and The Mill given in The Met's
timeline.
I would add one further element that may hint at this, which is this extraordinary claim in
an article on 6 th March 2018 in
The Sun (also carried in The
Mail ):
"As emergency crews cleared the substance left near the bench, others were called to
decontaminate the hospital. First reports suggested traces of the opiate fentanyl -- a
synthetic toxin many times stronger than heroin -- had been detected at the scene. But that
was later linked to unconnected incident involving another couple coincidentally in the
shopping centre."
That really is extraordinary. Another incident, this time a Fentanyl poisoning, the first of
its kind in Salisbury, on the same day, around the same time, and in the same shopping centre
as a nerve agent incident. That's about as likely as the British Army's Chief Nurse happening
to be there at that exact same moment, isn't it? Did it really happen? I have no idea. But if
it did, was this something to do with the " initial scene" -- the one that saw Mr Bailey
and two of his colleagues taken to hospital ( here is a link to BBC article confirming that two
police officers were contaminated, as well as a third member of the emergency services, who was
clearly Mr Bailey)?
Questions, questions, questions. To which there must be answers, answers, answers.
Unfortunately, those controlling the narrative are not about to give them any time soon, and
they will no doubt continue to perpetuate the absurd, the implausible, and the impossible,
rather than coming clean with the truth.
This is the kind of country we are becoming. This is the kind of society that those behind
this riddle, wrapped in a cover up, inside a hoax, are leading us to. A national security
state, where the truth is buried underneath an avalanche of deception, and where those who try
to honestly get to the bottom of it are labelled enemies of the state, treated shamefully, so
that others are deterred from following suit. It rather minds me of this, from one of the early
church fathers, St. Anthony:
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they
will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.'"
It's not the kind of society I hoped to see when I was growing up. It's not the kind of
society I hoped my children would grow up in. My guess is that it's not even the kind of
society that those who are playing these elaborate games wanted to grow up in. Yet it is what
it is, and I am persuaded that those who have brought us to this point have more trouble
sleeping than I do. I would urge them to consider this, before it is too late:
"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will
not be known and come to light." – Jesus Christ (Luke 8:17)
POSTSCRIPT
I just wanted to say thanks once again for all the many wonderful commenters and their
thoughtful analysis of this case over the last couple of years. Your contributions are much
appreciated. Once again, it is my intention to write about other things, and my sincere hope is
that I don't find myself writing a 3rd anniversary piece.
I also wanted to draw your attention to a new book on the subject, Skripal in Prison
, by John Helmer. I regret that I would have liked to be in a position to be able to make one
or two comments on the book, but unfortunately I have not had the time to read it myself yet.
But given John's pieces on the subject on his blog, I have no doubt that it will be a most
interesting and enlightening read. You can get a copy of it here:
Female psychopath are especially dangerous as "reverse sexual predators". Assumption that all women are honest in their
accusations is extremely naive. Revenge and other inferior motives are pretty common, especially in academic setting.
"A sense of walking on eggshells" is a sure sign of unhealthy psychopath dominated environment.
Notable quotes:
"... Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan Stanley executive said. ..."
"... All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust #MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the reporters say. ..."
"... "If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," ..."
The #MeToo movement was supposed to make life easier for women in the workplace. It was all
about respect and making real abusers pay a price for their behavior. But is it possible to
have too much of a good thing?
One of the aims of the movement was to force a change in the conduct of men who said and did
sexually inappropriate things in the workplace -- a concept which few people could quibble
with. A year on from its beginnings, however, it seems the movement has morphed into something
else entirely -- and ironically, it's hurting both men and women.
The 'Pence Effect' and 'gender segregation'
The #MeToo movement has taken down men across a wide spectrum of industries -- but so far,
Wall Street has avoided a huge public scandal -- despite its reputation for being, well, a
fairly sexist and male-oriented environment. So why has it escaped the #MeToo
spotlight?
Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and
found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their
careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or
even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or
gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan
Stanley executive said.
Bloomberg dubbed the phenomenon the 'Pence Effect' after the US vice president who
previously admitted that he would never dine alone with any woman other than his wife. British
actor Taron Egerton recently also said he now avoided being alone with
women for fear of finding himself in #MeToo's crosshairs.
I remember when a woman I was friendly/kind with perceived me as someone who wanted
"more." She wrote me a message about how she was uncomfortable. I'm gay. https://t.co/7z0X7Dwzkp
All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust
#MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the
reporters say.
Hurting women's progress?
The most ironic outcome of a movement that was supposed to be about women's empowerment is
that now, even hiring a woman on Wall Street has become an "unknown risk," according
to one wealth advisor, who said there is always a concern that a woman might take something
said to her in the wrong way.
With men occupying the most senior positions on Wall Street, women need male mentors who can
teach them the ropes and help them advance their careers, but what happens when men are afraid
to play that role with their younger female colleagues? The unintended consequence of the
#MeToo movement on Wall Street could be the stifling of women's progress and a sanitization of
the workplace to the point of not even being able to have a private meeting with the door
closed.
Another irony is that while men may think they are avoiding one type of scandal, could find
themselves facing another: Discrimination complaints.
"If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of
being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment
complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," Stephen Zweig, an employment
attorney with FordHarrison told Bloomberg.
Not all men are responding to the #MeToo movement by fearfully cutting themselves off from
women, however. "Just try not to be an asshole," one said, while another added:
"It's really not that hard."
It might not be that simple, however. It seems there is no escape from the grip of the
#MeToo movement. One of the movements most recent victims of the viral hashtag movement is not
a man, but a song -- the time-honored classic 'Baby It's Cold Outside' -- which is being banished
from American radio stations because it has a "rapey" vibe.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Rabid militarism is the result of "Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine". It can't be changed
without changing the doctrine. Which requires elimination of neocons from foreign policy
establishment. But the there is not countervailing force to MIC to push for this.
Oona Hathaway makes
the case for radically reorienting U.S. national security policy to address the real
significant threats to the country. Among other things, that means winding down the endless war
and our preoccupation with militarized counter-terrorism:
If one believes, as I do, that the fundamental goal of a national security program should
be to protect American lives, then we clearly have our priorities out of place. Just as the
9/11 attacks led to a reorientation of national security policy around a counterterrorism
mission, the COVID-19 crisis can and should lead to a reorientation of national security
policy. There should be a commission styled on the 9/11 Commission to assess the failures of
the U.S. government, both federal and local, to respond to the pandemic and to chart a better
course forward. Until then, a few key steps that we should take are already clear:
First, we should spend less time and resources on counterterrorism efforts abroad. The
"endless wars" that began after 9/11 should finally come to a close.
The U.S. should be ending the "war on terror" in any case because the threat does not merit
the enormous resources devoted to fighting it, and the militarized overkill over the last two
decades has helped to create far more terrorist groups than there were before it began. On top
of that, the U.S. has much bigger concerns that pose far greater and more immediate threats to
the lives of our people and to our way of life than terrorism ever could. A pandemic is a
threat that is now obvious to all of us, but for the last two decades it was not taken nearly
as seriously as imaginary Iraqi WMDs and potential Iranian nukes. We have been straining at
gnats for at least half of my lifetime, and when the real danger appeared many of us were
oblivious to it. Not only have other threats been blown out of proportion, but the more serious
threat that is now upon us received virtually no attention until it was already upon us. Like
Justinian wasting decades waging useless wars, we have been caught unawares by a plague, but in
our case we have far less excuse because there were many warnings that something like this was
coming and could be brought under control. Nonetheless, we allowed our defenses against it to
grow weaker, and the current administration did as much as possible to dismantle what was
left.
Once the immediate crisis is over, the U.S. needs to shift its focus away from fruitless
military campaigns in Asia. We need to reallocate resources away from the bloated military
budget, which has had so little to do with actually protecting us, and plow most of those
resources into pandemic preparedness, scientific research, and building up a much more
resilient health care system. Pandemics aren't wars, but guarding against pandemics is an
important part of national security and it is arguably much more important than having the
ability to project power to the far corners of the world. Because pandemics are global
phenomena, guarding the U.S. against them will entail more intensive international cooperation
than before. Hathaway continues:
One clear lesson of this crisis is that when it comes to a pandemic, no nation can protect
itself on its own. International cooperation is essential. The World Health Organization has
played an important role in battling the virus. But it has been hobbled by limited funding,
and it's busy fundraising to support its work even as it's trying to undertake ambitious
programs. The United Nations Security Council, meanwhile, has been mostly absent from the
conversation. The pandemic is global and it requires a global approach. But these
international institutions have not had the funding or the international support to play the
role they should have in coordinating a quick global response to the spread of the virus.
When this crisis is over, it will be essential to evaluate how to coordinate a faster, more
effective global response when the next pandemic arises.
All nations have a shared interest in pooling resources and sharing information to bring
outbreaks like the current one under control. As tempting as it may be for some hard-liners to
engage in great power rivalry in the midst of such a disaster, the responsible course of action
is to pause these contests for the sake of resolving the crisis sooner. The U.N. response has
been hobbled by mutual recriminations between some of the permanent members of the Security
Council, specifically the U.S. and China, and if there is to be an effective and coordinated
global response that sort of demagoguery and point-scoring will have to end.
Scaling back the size of the military budget will necessarily involve reducing the U.S.
military footprint around the world. It is not reasonable or safe to expect a smaller military
to support a strategy of primacy. Primacy was always unsustainable, and it was just a matter of
time before the time came when it would have to be abandoned. It turns out that the time for
abandoning the pursuit of primacy came earlier than expected. The U.S. should have started
making this transition many years ago, but recent events make it imperative that we begin
now.
There is not, and has not been since the Cold War, any daylight between the Republican and
Democratic parties on foreign policy. Both have been consistently in the thrall of the
neocons. While a few Democratic contenders took anti-war stances this year (Sanders,
Warren, Gabbard), the rest did not, and Biden, specifically has been on the wrong side of
all of these issues in the past. There is no reason to think he will not continue the
endless wars and, probably, start new ones if elected.
Since relatively few people vote for third parties, it is a sure thing that the vast
majority of Americans will vote for one of the two warmongers on offer from the major
parties. And so it was in 2016: whether you voted for Clinton or Trump, you were voting for
more endless war. Those who supported Clinton mostly knew that; many who voted for Trump
deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries, many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq). ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States
stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of
supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300
years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called
the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents
even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area
of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon
exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the
sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly
easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in
funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the
coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
An interesting connection between Skripal false flag and Syria false flag.
Notable quotes:
"... Main Stream Media ..."
"... "The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil." [4] ..."
Hamish
de Bretton-Gordon is the pretentious name used by a fellow who seems to have been a
lieutenant colonel in the British Army and a chemical weapons expert. He has
access to the media and markets the Party Line . Whose? The Foreign Office's version of
truth, one that denies the very active role of the Israel Lobby in using American forces to make war
in the Middle East.
de Bretton Gordon's public position is that chemical weapons are nasty dangerous things
being used by Bashar al
Assad , the president of Syria
to attack innocent civilians. Before believing this story look at what Seymour Hersh has to
say; that the Syria Gas Attack Carried Out
By America .
... ... ...
Civilians were under fire, he went on. He failed to mention that Al-Nusra might be holding
them as human shields, as they did in Eastern Aleppo. The Syrian army liberated that area in
December twenty-sixteen.
For the first time in five years the city's Christians were able to celebrate Christmas
free from constant bombardment from the Al-Nusra terrorists in the east.
Celebrating Christmas in Aleppo December 2016.
The US and UK Governments and the mainstream media hated the liberation of Eastern Aleppo.
They will equally bewail the liberation of Eastern Ghouta, when it comes.
Indeed, during the BBC interview, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon came across as nothing more
than a UK government sock-puppet. He confirmed this when he commended what he said were 'the
peace talks in Geneva'. We shall come to that below.
Doctors Under Fire
Mr David Nott is a respected surgeon but blames 'Assad' for everything.
But what of this man, and what of 'Doctors Under Fire'? Well, the latter has apparently
just two members, De Bretton Gordon and one David Nott, a surgeon who has been in war-torn
areas. Mr Nott similarly finds no good word to say about the Syrian government.
Oddly, in a video on Vimeo from
2016 he says Doctors Under Fire will be a charity. The Charity Commission has no record
of it, nor of 'Medics under Fire' which is what the Doctors Under Fire website is called.
When you go to the website , at
this time of writing, you're invited to a rally on 7th May. On further investigation, that is
7th May 2016. Their website is two years out of date. Of course hospitals should not be
attacked in war zones, but
the Doctors Under Fire platform gives Messrs De B-G and Nott credibility to advance
another agenda.
Hospital bombing scam
Furthermore, this
astonishing video collated all the times the 'last hospital' in eastern Aleppo was put
out of action by 'Syrian regime airstrikes'. Can you guess how many it was? And how do the
mainstream media source their footage of sick children, hospitals, and dare we add, 'doctors
under fire'? They are entirely dependent on the terrorists. No western journalist can venture
into their areas. Why? For fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom by the very people
they champion.
De Bretton Gordon also claimed on the BBC a hospital in eastern Ghouta had been hit. That
was why they gave him a platform under his 'Doctors Under Fire' persona. But again, it was
second-hand terrorist propaganda.
Here, the impressive 'Off-Guardian' website exposes the Syrian totem head of the 'White
Helmets', which was a British Foreign Office creation, as we
investigated here . This relentless
tugging at western heart-strings is a scam and the msm [ Main Stream Media ] know it.
Hamish de
Bretton-Gordon
SecureBio spun off from Hamish De Bretton-Gordon's time in the British Army
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a retired Colonel with an OBE. He commanded NATO's Rapid
Reaction Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Battalion. He ran a company
called SecureBio with, we read on this
'military speakers' website , 'an impressive list of blue chip clients globally.'
However, Companies House says
SecureBio resolved to go into liquidation in June 2015.
The Colonel now apparently works for a company which makes breathing masks, Avon Protection . His LinkedIn
profile claims he is 'Managing Director CBRN' of Avon, despite not actually being a
director. He also claims still to be director of SecureBio. He does not mention that company
was dissolved in August 2017 with debts over £715,000.
Call for France to drop
bombs on Syria
De Bretton-Gordon has teamed up with Avon Protection which makes breathing masks.
De Bretton-Gordon no longer has any connection with military field-work. Nevertheless, he
has continued access to the world's media when subjects like Syria and alleged chemical
weapons come up.
Securebio's YouTube channel is
still online and has a number of videos of the colonel calling for 'safe havens' for
terrorists. He has appeared frequently on Sunni-Muslim Qatar's Al Jazeera TV channel.
Finally, why did the Colonel's promotion of the Geneva peace talks raise the alarm?
Because this is a UK-driven political view. In reality the Geneva talks stalled in February
twenty-seventeen. The Kurds took against the inconsequential opposition in exile pompously
called the High Negotiations Committee.
The Geneva talks finally collapsed in November when the Syrians would not agree to
President Assad stepping aside, a key, but stupid, UK and US demand.
The Guardian's highly-respected Patrick Wintour says the talks De Bretton Gordon extols
are 'perilously shorn of credibility'.
Meanwhile, the real peace talks, unmentioned by the Colonel, have been held in Astana,
capital of Kazakhstan. They are brokered by Russia, so the UK wants them to fail.
But the UN's Staffan de Mistura says the Astana talks are making small but 'clear
progress' to reducing violence in Syria.
They have now moved to Sochi on the Black Sea and we need to pray for
them.
They need to lay down their arms. But don't expect the Colonel to agree. The Bible says in
Psalm 120:7:
I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon will keep ringing the UK Government bell. A knighthood
cannot be far away. But we must take what he and the rest of the BBC's pro-Foreign Office
pundits say with a very large pinch of salt.
De Bretton-Gordon is Managing Director CBRN at Avon
Protection , the recognised global market leader in respiratory protection system
technology specialising primarily in Military, Law Enforcement, Firefighting, and Industrial.
[2]
Novichok
nerve agent
On 4 March 2018, a Russian double agent Sergei Skripal was reported to have been
poisoned in Salisbury with a nerve agent which British authorities
identified as Novichok .
Theresa May told
Parliament that she held Russia responsible for Skripal's attempted
murder.
According to Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, Novichok was allegedly developed in the Soviet Union at a laboratory
complex in Shikhany, in central Russia. Vil
Mirzayanov , a Russian chemist involved in the development of Novichok, who later
defected to the United
States , said the Novichok was tested at Nukus, in Uzbekistan . [3]
Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray , who visited the site at Nukus,
said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the
UK placing blame on Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal. In a blog post, Murray
wrote:
"The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve
agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British
soil." [4]
Deployments
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon's operational deployments included the 1st Gulf War , Cyprus , Bosnia , Kosovo , Iraq (multiple tours) and Afghanistan (2 tours) and has been in
Syria & Iraq frequently in the last 3 years.
This considerable experience in the field places Hamish de Bretton-Gordon as one of the
world's leading and most current experts in chemical and biological counter terrorism and
warfare.
Doctors
Under Fire
In December 2017, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon and fellow director David Nott of Doctors
Under Fire highlighted the case of seven children with curable cancer who were said to be
dying in Ghouta, Syria, for want of drugs and nourishment. They claimed
Union of Syrian Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM) hospitals in Ghouta were on
their knees with very few medicines left, and that kind words for the dying children were the
only palliative care available. [6]
UNQUOTE
This Christian has been abused; he does not approve of Homosexuality or abortion. In other words, he is
not a heretic.
The United States designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, followed
by the United Nations Security
Council and many other countries. [38] It was the
official Syrian branch of al-Qaeda until July 2016, when it ostensibly
split. [39][40]
In early 2015, the group became one of the major components of the powerful jihadist joint operations room
named the Army of
Conquest , which took over large territories in Northwestern Syria . It also operates in neighbouring Lebanon . [41] In November
2012, The
Washington Post described al-Nusra as the most successful arm of the rebel forces.
[[42]
In July 2016, al-Nusra formally separated from al-Qaeda and
re-branded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham ("Front for the Conquest of the Levant"). [39]
On 28 January 2017, following violent clashes with
Ahrar al-Sham and
other rebel groups, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham merged with four other groups to become Their al-Sham .
Christian
Voice ex Wiki
Christian Voice (CV) is a Christian advocacy group based in the
United Kingdom .
[1] Its stated
objective is "to uphold Christianity as the Faith of the United Kingdom, to be a voice for
Biblical values
in law and public policy, and to defend and support traditional family life." [2]
It is independent of religious, denominational, or political parties. [3]
CV is led by Stephen Green, with Lord Ashburn as its patron.
[3] Green
is the group's spokesperson, producing scores of press releases from 2005 to 2010. According
to Green, Christian Voice had in excess of 600 members in 2005. [4]
The group has been criticised for its positions. David Peel, leader of the United Reformed
Church called Christian Voice "a disgrace" [4] and
described their "claim to represent Christians" in the UK as "absurd". [[5]
Leadership Stephen Green
The leader, and sole staff member, of Christian Voice is Stephen Green [6]
, a former Chairman of the Conservative Family Campaign, who attends an Assemblies of
God Church. In the early 1990s, Green was a prominent campaigner against homosexuality through the
Conservative Family Campaign, and wrote a book called The Sexual Dead-End .
Medics Under Fire - org
Anti-Syrian government [ of 2016 ]
The repeated targeting of healthcare workers and hospitals by the Russian and Syrian
governments are war crimes. We call on you to give Syria's heroic healthcare workers and the
communities they serve a zone free from bombing to ensure their protection. The international
community has agreed the bombs need to stop. The resolutions are in place. They simply need
to be enforced.
Secure Bio
Limited ex Companies House
Registered office address
Bell Advisory, Tenth Floor 3 Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3H
Company status
Dissolved
Dissolved on
17 August 2017
Company type
Private limited Company
Incorporated on
29 June 2011
Last accounts made up to 31 December 2013
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Appointment of Hamish De Bretton-Gordon as a director
"... " T he operational dilemmas faced by Indo-Pacific Command demand urgent attention. In order to make American investments in advanced fighters, attack submarines, or breakthroughs in military technology meaningful (in other words, to deter or win a conflict), there must be urgent investment in runways, fuel and munitions storage, theater missile defenses, and command and control architecture to enable U.S. forces in a fight across the Pacific's vast exterior lines. " ..."
'Number one priority' is a $1.5 billion, 360-degree persistent and integrated air defense
ring around Guam.
... ... ...
Arguing in favor of the PDI i n a recent
op-ed , former Pacific policy official for the DoD Randall Schriver
and Eric Sayers, former special assistant to the commander of INDOPACOM,
wrote:
" T he operational dilemmas faced by Indo-Pacific Command demand urgent
attention. In order to make American investments in advanced fighters, attack submarines, or
breakthroughs in military technology meaningful (in other words, to deter or win a conflict),
there must be urgent investment in runways, fuel and munitions storage, theater missile
defenses, and command and control architecture to enable U.S. forces in a fight across the
Pacific's vast exterior lines. "
Well the Pentagon sees that the checkbooks are open, Look if those pencil necked doctors
can get 2trillion for a case of the sniffles, we ought to be able to get 2 billion to face
down the Chicoms!
VK #2
Yet you are fooled by the phony Socialism of "Red" China, which is really Neoliberalism in
disguise (I highly doubt Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or even the confused, Pro-U$ Mao would believe
Sweatshops, Stock Exchanges, and Billionaires represents the Socialist model of production).
I agree with you that Bernie Sanders is a gutless fraud and faux Socialist (he's merely a
Centre-Left Social Democrat yet he portrayed his movement as some sort of "Revolution", LOL),
who sadly represents the best you would ever get in the White House, in the sense that at
least he wouldn't have started any new wars, wouldn't have given any tax cuts to corporations
and the wealthy, and wouldn't have outsourced any more jobs in new free trade agreements
(these are the reasons I would have held my nose and voted for him if he had been nominated,
despite my much more Leftist beliefs).
However, I believe it smells of intense hypocrisy to call out Bernie Sanders as faux
Socialism (he is), while simultaneously bowing at the alter of Xi Jinping thought, which
along with being yet another form of faux Socialism like Bernies Social Democracy, isn't just
due to the naivety of believing that the phony Liberal Democratic process (in Marxist terms
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), can actually achieve meaningful reforms for the Working
class and not just pacify them. In reality, it represents something much more devious, a
country that had a Communist Revolution and established a Planned Socialist economic system,
yet decided to sell out its citizens for an alliance with the U$ and massive wealth for the
Communist Party leadership, who proceeded to turn their formerly Socialist country into a
Neoliberal, Neocolonial, Sweatshop, that by giving 15 Trillion dollars in surplus value to
Wall Street is one of the biggest sponsors of U$ Imperialism (remember, according to Lenin
Imperialism is not just launching Wars against small countries, but includes when Western
Corporation exploit third world populations for massive super profits through resource
extraction and cheap labor sweatshops). In reality their are only two countries today (Cuba
and North Korea) that are in the Socialist mode of production according to the
Marxist-Leninist definition, sadly their used to be many more (the USSR, the other Eastern
Bloc countries, Maoist China, etc.) which all succumb to Capitalist counterrevolution (the
USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countries etc.), or the ruling Communist Party embracing such
extreme revisionism that over time they basically restored the Capitalist mode of production
and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in all but name only. The reason for both of these
tragic events was the fact that due to a long-term revisionist trend after the death of
Stalin and Maos ridiculous Sino-Soviet split, the leadership of these countries became
corrupted by the desire for the U$-style "Good life" of mass consumerism and hedonistic
materialism (not Dialectical Materialism), thus proving that the real threat to Socialism is
the Neoliberal culture of decedent consumerism which corrupt the leadership and enchants the
masses of nations around the world.
Over the last week, there have, to my knowledge, been three big claims of 'Russian
disinformation' and 'Russian trolls/bots' on social media.
1. Last week, Russian equipment and support sent to Italy to help fight Covid-19. Nato
stenographers claim and spread the disinformation that '80% of the equipment was useless',
citing one anonymous source. Total lies.
2. Swedish minister claims social media campaign against a 5G network in Sweden is run by
russian trolls. Turns out it is a 64 year old grandmother living in Stockholm who is behind
the campaign.
3. Yesterday afternoon, russia media report, according to a National Health Service
source, Boris Johnson is on a ventilator in hospital. Utter nonsense say MSM, Russian
disinformation. Overnight headlines in British media – Boris in intensive care.
The western media are so totally venally corrupt in serving the 1% yet get found out in
their lies time after time and yet carry on. I try to read as many different media as
possible, but have no doubt, which are more credible, and it aint NATO stenographers
AnneR , April 7, 2020 at 14:33
Yes, John A. Truly there is something warped about the western ruling elites' mindset. But
I guess they have to have a bugaboo and Russia (then China, sometimes Iran and others) is the
primary, western created, go-to one. Even among those who did not grow up, or were only
young, during the cold war.
I am only thankful that, despite my father's Tory politics (all but regarding the land,
which he believed should be nationalized and 50 acres given to every male [well, he was
sexist]; an curious, decidedly not Tory viewpoint) the USSR as was then never was on either
his or my mother's agenda. Indeed, we used to watch with much pleasure the Red Army choir,
once we got a television (not till 1958, when I was 10), which toured the UK, I *think*
No ducking under school desks. Nor any other weird thing
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
Bookmark
◄
►
▲
▼
Toggle All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Remove from
Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the
'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
I've heard that, as part of
new amendments
to the Russian Constitution, President Putin proposes to include the Russian people's
"faith in God," and a definition of marriage as a "union of a man and a woman." I'm a bit skeptical about
the news, but if true, I think it's a great idea. If voted in the upcoming referendum, it would consecrate
the civilizational schism that is likely to define the history of our civilization in the coming century: in
the West, the post-modernist project of liberating man from his human nature, to produce an uprooted,
transgendered, upgraded man,
Homo Deus
. In the East, the choice of honoring and protecting our
spiritual and anthropological roots, to produce the genuine thing:
Mars and Venus,
virile men and
feminine women grateful to their Creator for each other, reveling in their fertile complementarity.
Needless to say, the proposal has the
support of Moscow Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, but also of Muslim leader Talgat Tadzhuddin. The idea is to
transcend particular creeds and churches. More surprisingly, Communist Party boss Gennady Zyuganov raises no
objection.
As a country that was still officially
Marxist-Leninist thirty years ago, Russia has come a long way. America too, for that matter. Interestingly,
God is not mentioned in the American Constitution, although he is ubiquitous on dollar bills (think of Jesus
being handed a dollar bill instead of a Roman denarius in Matthew 22!).
Other proposed amendments, such as
banning foreign citizenships and bank accounts for state officials, have obvious practical advantages, and
are so sensible that they raise little discussion. By contrast, adding God into the constitution is highly
and purely symbolic. Some will argue that it will have no real consequence. It all depends on the power we
attribute to symbols. I would think that such a collective proclamation by the Russian people would have a
strong impact, both on Russian self-consciousness, and as a message to the West. It could also lead to real
changes, in academia, for example: I can't wait for the day when
Intelligent Design
research will be
funded in Russian universities, rather than censored as it is in the U.S. (watch Ben Stein's documentary
Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed
).
What are the arguments for enshrining
God in the Constitution? That is one of the most important questions in political science that you can think
of. This will come as a surprise to many, but the man who has thought the deepest on this question is
perhaps Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794). On May 7, 1794, he had the Convention decreed, with a view to
inscribing it in the French Constitution, that, "the French people recognize the existence of the Supreme
Being and the immortality of the soul." On June 8, he presided over a national holiday dedicated to the
Divine Creator. It was a great success, both in Paris and in the provinces. Robespierre was then immensely
popular, but his career would end fifty days later when he was arrested, silenced by a gunshot through his
jaw, and executed the next day without trial, together with his brother Augustin and twenty-one of his
friends, followed the next two days by eighty-three of his supporters, their bodies and heads thrown into a
mass grave, with lime spread on them so as to leave no trace. In the aftermath of their coup, Robespierre's
assassins crushed demonstrations of mourning for the Incorruptible, and launched a press campaign against
him that basically continues to this day.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding
about Robespierre and his "religious policy." For that reason, I thought that the Russian constitutional
debate would be a good opportunity -- or a pretext -- for some reappraisal of a great man unfairly vilified, and
thereby a case study in the transformation of a vanquished hero into a monster by state propaganda. But the
main purpose of this article is to present Robespierre's ideas on the relationship between religion and
politics, which I find stimulating and pertinent for our time -- and, I expect, unfamiliar to most.
Robespierre was the heir and probably
the most articulate advocate of a long tradition of thinkers who equally disliked religious dogmatism and
atheism, not only as too narrow for their own minds, but as harmful to society. In his view, both were
symmetrical forms of fanaticism. He would not be the last to think along this line. Thomas Jefferson once
wrote to John Adams
: "Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their
general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god." There
is much truth in this statement. But the
principle
of authoritative revelation is not the main factor
involved in the development of Western atheism, I think. The
content
of the revelation is critical. I
believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as "God"
in the Old Testament. Yahweh's obscenity has ultimately ruined God's reputation. Voltaire, that old
anti-Semite
, ridiculed Christianity by quoting almost exclusively the Old Testament. Still today,
Darwinian high priest Richard Dawkins can only make his atheism sound plausible by first professing,
correctly:
"The God of the Old Testament is
arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic,
racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
malevolent bully."
[1]
Richard
Dawkins, in
The God Delusion,
Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.
In his speech on "the relations of
religious and moral ideas with republican principles," read at the Convention six weeks before his death,
Robespierre said:
"I know of nothing so close to
atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have
destroyed him as much as it was in them; [ ] the priests created a god in their image; they made him
jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless."
(That judgment is partially inexact: the
cruel God of the Old Testament may have been used by priests as a means of social control, but he had been
created by the Levites long before. Robespierre had no clue about the Jewish Question.)
ORDER IT NOW
Let's start with a clarification:
Today's French traditionalist Catholics insist that Robespierre's "Être Suprême" has nothing to do with
their God, and they pretend that it has Freemasonic overtones. They even confuse it with the
deification of Reason
, a cult that Robespierre execrated and combatted. So let's set the record
straight: There is no evidence that Robespierre was ever a Freemason. He borrowed the expression "Supreme
Being" from Rousseau, who never was a Freemason either. It had been used since the Renaissance and was of
common usage. Even the very royalist, Catholic and counter-revolutionary Joseph de Maître begins his
Considerations on France
(1797) with the sentence: "We are all attached to the throne of the Supreme
Being by a flexible chain, which retains us without enslaving us." François René de Chateaubriand, who also
hated Robespierre, used repeatedly the phrase "Supreme Being" in his apology of Catholicism,
Le Génie du
christianisme
(1799). Therefore, there is no reason to consider that, in Robespierre's speeches,
"Supreme Being" meant anything else than God. His suggestion to engrave in the Constitution that the French
people have "faith in the Supreme Being" is equivalent to Putin's proposal.
Putin has the support of the Patriarch
whereas Robespierre was anathemized by the Pope, you may object. But here is the heart of the matter:
Russian orthodoxy is, fundamentally, a national religion, and today more than ever, with the canonization of
the martyred Romanovs. The main reason why Roman Catholicism was unacceptable for Robespierre was that it
meant loyalty to a foreign power. Yet contrary to the common image, Robespierre did not seek to ban
Catholicism, he only required that French bishops and priests swear loyalty to the French State, rather than
to the Roman Pope. That was pretty much what every French monarch had tried and failed to do since Philipp
the Fair. As we shall see, Robespierre actually opposed the "dechristianization" campaign of the
Enragés
,
and denounced them as the useful idiots or willing accomplices of the counter-revolutionaries.
There are two other differences between
Robespierre's and Putin's proposals. Robespierre saw the traditional family as the basic cell of a healthy
society, but almost everyone did, then. Stipulating that marriage can only join a man and a woman would have
been as superfluous as affirming that 1 plus 1 make 2.
The second difference is that
Robespierre wanted to mention the immortality of the soul next to the existence of God. "Immortality of the
soul" may have sounded to most of Robespierre's contemporaries a straightforward concept. But today, the
formulation would beg too many metaphysical questions: What's a soul? Do animals have one? Is it individual
or collective, or both? Where does it go? Does immortal means eternal? etc. And that other question: if
every human being has an immortal soul, at what stage of its development does the fetus get one? I'm not
saying it would be a bad thing, but bringing up the issue in the constitutional referendum could be very
divisive.
In the standard textbook history of the
French Revolution, Robespierre is portrayed as a fanatic and megalomaniac dictator, and he is blamed for the
Great Terror that sent approximately 17,000 people to the guillotine in the six weeks preceding his demise.
Ever since Jules Michelet, who fashioned our
roman national
, the figure of Robespierre has served to
embody all the evils of the French Revolution, exactly like Philippe Pétain for World War II. While Danton
has boulevards in his name and is celebrated by Hollywood, Robespierre is the usual bad guy.
"As Robespierre lay on a table in
the antechamber of the Committee of Public Safety, drifting in and out of consciousness, his
ball-shattered jaw bound up with a bandage, his triumphant enemies, in another room of the Tuileries
palace, were creating the monster who would soon pass into historical legend. This Robespierre, created
by using materials scavenged from old calumny, damaging anecdote, and sometimes sheer malicious
invention, was one of the founding acts of a new revolutionary government. The Thermidorians -- thus have
Robespierre's conquerors and successors been dubbed -- sought not only to justify their
coup d'état
of July 1794 (the month of Thermidor in the revolutionary calendar) but to evade the opprobrium they
shared with Robespierre and his comrades for deeds done during the agonizing crisis the previous year,
during the Terror. The vengeful malice of the Thermidorians was partly successful: their caricature of
Robespierre has proved durable."
Robespierre was primarily a man of
words, in a time when eloquence was a political act, when speeches could change the opinion of deputies, and
sometimes even win a whole assembly. He was a great writer and a great orator. Not even his ennemies doubted
the sincerity of his passionate defense of the poor and downtrodden: "That man will go far -- he believes
everything he says," Mirabeau once remarked. His speeches, delivered at the Jacobin Club or at the
Convention, were printed and widely distributed, and had a huge echo all over France.
In the spring of 1793, he reluctantly
joined the
Comité de salut public
(Committee of Public Safety), a revolutionary tribunal responsible
for sending conspirators against the new Republic to their death, at a time when the Republic was at war
against Austria, Prussia, Spain and England. Robespierre's responsibility in the Great Terror that marked
the last two months of the Committee is a debated subject, but it is admitted that he was absent from
Committee meetings, probably sick, during its last six weeks of work.
In his final speech to the Convention,
just before being arrested, Robespierre denounced a plot to lose him by spilling blood on his behalf. He
claimed that his enemies, in order to rally enough deputies against him, had circulated fake lists of
suspects allegedly written by himself, and spread the rumor that he was preparing a major purge, when in
fact he wanted to end the Terror. Napoleon Bonaparte later confirmed this accusation, and believed that
"Robespierre was the real scapegoat for the Revolution." Alphonse de Lamartine, who wrote a
Histoire des
Girondins
in eight volumes, also came to the realization that Robespierre's enemies "covered him, for
forty days, with the blood they shed to disgrace him."
[3]
Jean-Philippe
Domecq,
Robespierre, dernier temps
, Folio/Histoire, 2011, p. 27-30
Simultaneously, they
created the golden legend of Danton, in reality a disgusting money-grubber.
Danton (1759-1794)
I will not delve deeper into
Robespierre's biography; I just wanted to point out that his standard portrayal is the product of an
elaborate and massive propaganda operation by those who overthrew him. I will now focus of his religious
views, which are generally underrated, although, from his own testimony, they determined his political
views.
[4]
My
presentation owes a lot to Henri Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil, 1987.
Robespierre did not view religion as a
purely private matter. He believed that the idea of God is an indispensable foundation for public morality,
and should be taught in schools and celebrated publicly. "The idea of the Supreme Being and of the
immortality of the soul is a constant reminder of justice; therefore, it is social and republican."
Robespierre's ideas were elaborated from
those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom he held as the greatest "tutor of the human race." Rousseau's "natural
religion" was itself not a new idea. Let me sketch a brief history of that tradition, before coming back to
Robespierre.
If we define "natural religion" as the
claim that belief in God and in the afterlife is sufficiently founded on reason and experience, then it is
as old as Plato, and probably much older. If we define it additionally as a rebellion against the authority
of Christian scriptures and dogmas, then it seems to have been around as long as Christianity. Proofs are
hard to find for the Middle Ages, when monks had a quasi monopoly on writing. But from the end of the
twelfth century, there is enough evidence of forms of religious beliefs independent and sometimes
incompatible with Christian doctrine. I have analyzed some of this evidence in my book
La Mort féerique: Anthropologie du merveilleux (XIIe-XVe siècles)
, a rewriting of my doctoral
thesis. We know for example that the court of the famous Frederick II Hohenstaufen (1194-1250) was replete
with scholars and noblemen whose religious views were inspired by classical philosophy, and who resented
Catholic intolerance. Pope Gregory IX, founder of the Inquisition, made the following accusation against
Frederick: "Openly, this king of pestilence notably affirmed -- to use his own words -- that the whole world was
duped by three impostors: Jesus Christ, Moses and Muhammad."
[5]
Quoted
in Ernst Kantorowicz,
L'empereur Frédéric II
, Gallimard, 1987 (1
st
German ed. 1927), pp.
451-452.
The accusation is plausible. Having been raised in multicultural Sicily in the company
of Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars, he had reflected on the problems caused by the very notion of
revelation.
Frederick was a polymath scientist, a
polyglot, an outstanding diplomat (he conquered Jerusalem without shedding a drop of blood), and an
enlightened lawmaker. He was "the Wonder of the World" (
Stupor Mundi
), the most prestigious and
powerful prince of his age. Yet the pope prevailed over him, and pursued his descendants with insatiable
hatred, until his lineage was eradicated, and his name covered with calumny. Nevertheless, his memory would
be cherished by some of the best minds throughout the thirteenth centuries. Dante's treaty
De Monarchia
(1313) is believed to be a defense of Frederick's project (on Dante and the
Fedeli d'Amore,
you
may want to read the relevant section of my article
"The Crucifixion of the Goddess"
).
Frederick's amazing Castel del Monte, in Southern Italy
With the growing power of the
Inquisition, overt advocacy of natural religion became impossible. That is when we start hearing of secret
circles of intellectuals. The rediscovery of the ancient Greeks and Romans also provided a relatively safe
cover for expressing unchristian views on God and the afterlife, and I believe that apocryphal forgeries are
more numerous than generally acknowledged. The great Petrarch (1304-1374) may have forged rather than
discovered the letters of Cicero that became the blueprint for his own humanism.
[6]
Jerry
Brotton,
The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo,
Oxford UP, 2010, pp. 66-67.
In the next century, the printing press
and the Reformation provided an unprecedented window of tolerance, especially in the Netherlands. Erasmus of
Rotterdam (1469–1536) approached natural religion as the common denominator of all faiths, and the means of
overcoming religious wars. His friend Thomas More imagined in his
Utopia
,
or the best form of
government
(1516), an ideal world where people hold a variety of opinions on religious questions, but
"all agree in this: that they think there is one Supreme Being that made and governs the world." The public
cult is for this Supreme Being alone, while "every sect performs those rites that are peculiar to it in
their private houses."
Then came John Locke, with his
Letter
Concerning Toleration,
first published in Latin in 1689. Locke went further than Erasmus in declaring
immoral any doctrine professing that good people are damned if they do not believe in this or that dogma.
Churches who require loyalty to a foreign power should also be banished, for by tolerating them, the
magistrate "would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own
people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government." That concerns Roman Catholicism,
of course, but also Islam:
"It is ridiculous for any one to
profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a
Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to
the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the
feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure."
Locke deemed atheism as immoral and
socially corrosive as papism: "those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises,
covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist." For Anthony
Collins (1676-1729), a friend of Locke,
"Ignorance is the foundation of
Atheism
, and
Free-Thinking
the Cure of it. And thus tho it should be allow'd, that some Men
by
Free-Thinking
may become
Atheists
yet they will ever be fewer in number if
Free-Thinking
were permitted, than if it were restrain'd." (
A
Discourse of Freethinking
,
1713)
In the eighteenth century, it was still
risky to profess openly such ideas. Locke had to print his book anonymously in Amsterdam. David Hume
published his
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
anonymously and posthumously in 1779. Secret
societies were still necessary for intellectuals to discuss safely on these matters. Irish philosopher John
Toland (1670-1722) wrote in his
Pantheisticon
:
"The Philosophers therefore, and
other well-wishers to mankind in most nations, were constrain'd by this holy tyranny to make use of a
twofold doctrine; the one
Popular,
accommodated to the Prejudices of the vulgar, and to the
receiv'd Customs or Religions: the other
Philosophical,
conformable to the nature of things, and
consequently to Truth; which, with doors fast shut and under all other precautions, they communicated
only to friends of known probity, prudence, and capacity. These they generally call'd the
Exoteric
and
Esoteric
, or the
External
and
Internal Doctrines.
"
[7]
Quoted
in Jan Assmann,
Religio Duplex: How the Enlightenment Reinvented Egyptian Religion,
Polity Press,
2014, p. 59.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) gave
the notion of "natural religion" a wide audience by his literary genius. His religious conception is exposed
in the "
Profession of Faith
of the Savoyard Vicar", a section of Book IV of the
Émile
,
which caused the book to be banned in Paris and Geneva, and publicly burned in 1762. Rousseau gives there an
exposé of "theism or natural religion, which Christians pretend to confound with atheism or irreligion, its
exact opposite." Rousseau declares having no need for religious books, since Nature is a more useful book
for discovering God;
"if I use my reason, if I cultivate
it, if I employ rightly the innate faculties which God bestows upon me, I shall learn by myself to know
and love him, to love his works, to will what he wills, and to fulfill all my duties upon earth, that I
may please him. What more can all human learning teach me?"
Catholic dogmas are a useless and even
poisonous jumble, Rousseau writes in his
Letters Written from the Mountain
(1764):
"For how can the mystery of the
Trinity, for example, contribute to the good constitution of the State? In what way will its members be
better Citizens when they have rejected the merit of good works? And what does the dogma of original sin
have to do with the good of civil society? Although true Christianity is an institution of peace, who
does not see that dogmatic or theological Christianity, by the multitude and obscurity of its dogmas and
above all by the obligation to accept them, is a permanent battlefield between men."
Rousseau devotes the last chapter of
The Social Contract
(1762) to "civil religion". Like Locke, he condemns as contrary to public peace
churches professing intolerance, because: "It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as
damned." Therefore, "whoever dares to say 'Outside the Church is no salvation', ought to be driven from the
State."
ORDER IT NOW
Rousseau first proceeded to show that
"the law of Christianity at bottom does more harm than good by weakening instead of strengthening the
constitution of the State." Christianity, even at its best, is too focused on individual salvation. Rousseau
sees God as more fully manifested in human societies than in holy hermits. Here is a sample of Rousseau's
proposal:
"it matters very much to the
community that each citizen should have a religion that will make him love his duty; but the dogmas of
that religion concern the State and its members only so far as they have reference to morality and to the
duties which he who professes them is bound to do to others. Each man may have, over and above, what
opinions he pleases, without it being the Sovereign's business to take cognisance of them; for, as the
Sovereign has no authority in the other world, whatever the lot of its subjects may be in the life to
come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this life.
There is therefore a purely civil
profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but
as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject. [ ]
The dogmas of civil religion ought to
be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty,
intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the
happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws:
these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the
cults we have rejected."
Rousseau uses here the word "dogmas",
but for him, neither the existence of God or the immortality of the soul are based on revelation; they are
proven by observation and introspection. His argument for God's existence in
Émile
sounds
surprisingly similar to the modern argument for
Intelligent Design
:
"Those who deny the unity of
intention which manifests itself in the reports of all the parts of this great whole, however much they
cover their gibberish with abstractions, coordinations, general principles, emblematic terms; whatever
they do, it is impossible for me to conceive of a system of beings so constantly ordered, that I do not
conceive of an intelligence which orders it. It does not depend on me to believe that passive and dead
matter could have produced living and feeling beings, [ ], that what does not think could have produced
thinking beings."
In a speech he had printed in April
1791, Robespierre thanked the "eternal Providence" who called on the French, "alone since the origin of the
world, to restore on earth the empire of Justice and Liberty." In March 1792, the president of the
Legislative Assembly Élie Guadet opposed the sending to the patriotic societies of an address of
Robespierre, on the pretext that he had used the word "Providence" too many times:
"I admit that, seeing no sense in
this idea, I would never have thought that a man who worked with so much courage, for three years, to
pull the people out of the slavery of despotism, could contribute to put them back under the slavery of
superstition."
Robespierre responded:
"Superstition, it is true, is one of
the supports of despotism, but it is not inducing citizens in superstition to pronounce the name of the
Divinity. [ ] I, myself, support these eternal principles on which human weakness leans to rise up toward
virtue. It is not a vain language in my mouth, any more than in that of all the illustrious men who had
no less moral, to believe in the existence of God. / Yes, invoking the Providence and expressing the idea
of the Eternal Being who influences essentially the destinies of nations, and who seems to me to watch
over the French revolution in a very special way, is not an idea too haphazard, but a feeling of my
heart, a feeling which [ ] has always sustained me. Alone with my soul, how could I have sufficed for
struggles which are beyond human strength, if I had not raised my soul to God?"
[9]
Auguste
Valmorel,
Œuvres de Robespierre,
1867 (sur fr.wikisource.org), p. 71.
Robespierre castigated the irreligion
that prevailed in the aristocracy and the high clergy, with bishops like Talleyrand openly boasting of lying
every Sunday. A gap had widened between the clerical hierarchy and the country priests. Among the latter,
many were responsible for drafting the peasants'
cahiers de doléances
. The counter-revolutionary
bishop Charles de Coucy, of La Rochelle, said in 1797 that the Revolution was "started by the bad priests."
[10]
Henri
Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil, 1987, p. 351.
For Robespierre, they
were the "good priests" whom the people of the countryside needed.
Robespierre was inflexible against the
priests who submitted to the pope by refusing to take an oath on the Civil Constitution (voted July 12,
1790). But he also opposed, until his last breath, any plan to abolish the funds allocated to Catholic
worship under the same Civil Constitution. He also opposed, but in vain, the new
Republican calendar
, with its ten-day week aimed at "suppressing Sunday," by the admission of its
inventor Charles-Gilbert Romme.
Robespierre's worst enemies were the
militant atheists, the
Enragés
like Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette or Jacques-René Hébert, who unleashed
the movement for dechristianization in November 1793, and started closing the churches in Paris or
transforming them into "Temples of Reason", with the slogan "death is an eternal sleep" posted on the gates
of cemeteries. Robespierre condemned "those men who have no other merit than that of adorning themselves
with an anti-religious zeal," and who "throw trouble and discord among us" (Club des Jacobins, November 21
1793). In his speech to the National Convention of December 5, 1793, he accused the dechristianizers of
acting secretly for the counter-revolution. Indeed, "hostile foreign powers support the dechristianization
of France as a policy pushing rural France into conflict with the Republic for religious reasons and thus
recruiting armies against the Republic in Vendée and in Belgium." By exploiting the violence of militant
atheist extremists, these foreign powers have two aims: "the first to recruit the Vendée, to alienate the
peoples of the French nation and to use philosophy for the destruction of freedom; the second, to disturb
public tranquility in the interior, and to distract all minds, when it is necessary to collect them to lay
the unshakable foundations of the Revolution."
Again in his "Report against
Philosophism and for the Freedom of Worship" (November 21, 1793), Robespierre again castigated the grotesque
cults of Reason instituted in churches by atheist fanatics:
"By what right do they come to
disturb the freedom of worship, in the name of freedom, and attack fanaticism with a new fanaticism? By
what right do they degenerate the solemn tributes paid to pure truth, in eternal and ridiculous pranks?
Why should they be allowed to play with the dignity of the people in this way, and to tie the bells of
madness to the very scepter of philosophy?"
The Convention, he says, intends "to
maintain freedom of cult, which it has proclaimed, while repressing all those who abuse it to disturb public
order." He declares that those who "persecute the peaceful ministers of cult" will be punished severely.
"There are men who, [ ] on the
pretext of destroying superstition, want to make a kind of religion of atheism itself. Any philosopher,
any individual can adopt whatever religious opinion he likes. Anyone who wants to make it a crime is a
fool; but the public figure, but the legislator would be a hundred times more foolish who would adopt
such a system. The National Convention abhors it. The Convention is not a book writer, an author of
metaphysical systems, it is a political and popular body, responsible for ensuring respect, not only for
the rights, but for the character of the French people. It was not in vain that it proclaimed the
Declaration of Human Rights [August 26, 1789] in the presence of the Supreme Being [mentioned in the
preamble]!
It may be said that I am a narrow
mind, a man of prejudice; what do I know, a fanatic. I have already said that I speak neither as an
individual nor as a systematic philosopher, but as a representative of the people. Atheism is
aristocratic; the idea of a Great Being who watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant
crime, is popular. [ ] This feeling is engraved in all sensitive and pure hearts; it always animates the
most magnanimous defenders of freedom. [ ] I repeat: we have no other fanaticism to fear than that of
immoral men, bribed by foreign courts to awaken fanaticism, and to give our revolution the veneer of
immorality, which is the character of our cowardly and fierce enemies."
The Robespierrists overcame the
Hebertists. After having failed in a project of insurrection against the Convention, Chaumette was arrested,
tried and executed for "conspiracy against the Republic" and for "having sought to annihilate any kind of
morality, erase any idea of divinity and found the French government on atheism." In May 1794, Robespierre
ordered to erase the mention "Temple of Reason" (or any similar denomination) from the portico of the
churches and to engrave instead: "the French people recognize the existence of the Supreme Being and the
immortality of the soul."
"Any institution, any doctrine which
consoles and lifts souls must be welcomed; reject all that tend to degrade and corrupt them. Revive,
exalt all generous feelings and all the great moral ideas that others wanted to extinguish; bring
together by the charm of friendship and by the bond of virtue the men whom others wanted to divide. Who
then gave you the mission to announce to the people that the Divinity does not exist, O you who are
passionate about this arid doctrine, and who are never passionate about the homeland? What advantage do
you find in persuading man that a blind force presides over his destinies and strikes crime and virtue at
random; that his soul is only a light breath that dies out at the gates of the tomb?
Will the idea of his nothingness
inspire him with purer and higher feelings than that of his immortality? Will it inspire him more respect
for his fellow men and for himself, more devotion to the fatherland, more courage to brave tyranny, more
contempt for death or for voluptuousness? You who regret a virtuous friend, you like to think that the
most beautiful part of himself has escaped death! You who weep over the coffin of a son or a wife, are
you comforted by him who tells you that there is nothing left of them but a vile dust? [ ] Miserable
sophist! by what right do you come to snatch from innocence the scepter of reason to put it back in the
hands of crime, throw a funeral veil over nature, add despair to misfortune, make vice rejoice, and
virtue saddened, degrade humanity? [ ]
Let us attach morality to eternal and
sacred bases; let us inspire in man this religious respect for man, this deep feeling of his duties,
which is the only guarantee of social happiness; let us nourish it with all our institutions; let public
education be mainly directed towards this goal."
ORDER IT NOW
On June 8, the resounding success of
the
Fête de l'Être Suprême
consecrated Robespierre's victory. In a show staged by the painter David,
a gigantic statue representing Atheism was burnt, and the effigy of Wisdom revealed. Hymns to the deity were
sung. But priests and references to Catholicism were absent. On this day, Robespierre
declared
, the Supreme Being, "sees an entire nation that is combating all the oppressors of humankind,
suspend the course of its heroic labors in order to raise its thoughts and its vows towards the Great Being
who gave it the mission to undertake it and the strength to execute it."
"He created men to mutually assist
and love each other, and to arrive at happiness by the path of virtue. It is He who placed remorse and
fear in the breast of the triumphant oppressor, and calm and pride in the heart of the innocent
oppressed. It is He who forces the just man to hate the wicked, and the wicked to respect the just man.
It is He who adorned the face of beauty with modesty, so as to make it even more beautiful. It is He who
makes maternal entrails palpitate with tenderness and joy. It is He who bathes with delicious tears the
eyes of a son pressed against his mother's breast. It is He who silences the most imperious and tender
passions before the sublime love of the fatherland. It is He who covered nature with charms, riches and
majesty. All that is good is His work, or is Him. Evil belongs to the depraved man who oppresses or
allows his like to be oppressed. The author of nature ties together all mortals in an immense chain of
love and felicity."
Generally speaking, the cult of the
Supreme Being was enthusiastically received in most regions of France. The French people were tired of the
civil war and eager to be reconciled under the auspices of God. Unfortunately, two days later, the Law of
the "22 Prairial" (June 10, 1794) accelerated the trials of the suspects of conspiracy against the Republic,
and opened the brief period of what will be called the Great Terror.
Robespierre's religious policy weighed
heavily on the motivations of the Thermidorians' plot against him. They accused him of aspiring to the
office of Grand Pontiff.
On the day before his death (July 28,
1794), at age 36, Robespierre
declared
:
"O Frenchmen! O my countrymen! Let
not your enemies, with their desolating doctrines, degrade your souls, and enervate your virtues! No,
Chaumette, no! Death is
not
'an eternal sleep!' Citizens! Erase from the tomb that motto, engraved
by sacrilegious hands, which spreads over all nature a funereal crape, takes from oppressed innocence its
support, and affronts the beneficent dispensation of death! Inscribe rather thereon these words: 'Death
is the commencement of immortality!'"
[1]
Richard Dawkins, in
The God Delusion,
Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.
[2]
Jean-Clément Martin,
Robespierre, la fabrication d'un monstre,
Perrin, 2016. Other recent
French historians who have drawn a rather positive image of Robespierre include Jean-Philippe Domecq,
Robespierre, dernier temps
, Folio/Histoire, 2011 and Cécile Obligi,
Robespierre. La probité
révoltante,
Belin, 2012.
[3]
Jean-Philippe Domecq,
Robespierre, dernier temps
, Folio/Histoire, 2011, p. 27-30
[4]
My presentation owes a lot to Henri Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil,
1987.
[5]
Quoted in Ernst Kantorowicz,
L'empereur Frédéric II
, Gallimard, 1987 (1
st
German
ed. 1927), pp. 451-452.
[6]
Jerry Brotton,
The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo,
Oxford UP, 2010,
pp. 66-67.
[7]
Quoted in Jan Assmann,
Religio Duplex: How the Enlightenment Reinvented Egyptian Religion,
Polity Press, 2014, p. 59.
[8]
Albert Lantoine,
Un précurseur de la franc-maçonnerie. John Toland (1670–1722)
,
suivi de
la traduction française du Pantheisticon de John Toland,
Éditions E. Nourry, 1927.
[9]
Auguste Valmorel,
Œuvres de Robespierre,
1867 (sur fr.wikisource.org), p. 71.
[10]
Henri Guillemin,
Robespierre, Politique et mystique,
Seuil, 1987, p. 351.
[11]
A translation of this speech can be found in P. H. Beik (eds),
The French Revolution: The
Documentary History of Western Civilization.
Palgrave Macmillan, 1970, but I have translated directly
from the French.
Rurik, call your office. The other day when you got schooled (along with me) by a Frenchman on the French
Revolution, you tried to grasp on to a last punitive straw -- well, maybe Robespierre at least deserved the
blade. As if on cue, LG here with more schooling.
Thank you for providing further insight into the religious sentiment of Robespierre.
While the American Constitution itself does not include explicit mention of God, every U.S. State
Constitution
certainly does
.
"It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned."
In any event, better not to pretend to know.
There is much to be said for religious tradition in which humility before God prevents one from assuming
his salvation is assured. Such a disposition facilitates dealing humanely and equitably with others, even
those outside his own faith community.
One of the (many) surprising revelations in Pamela Druckerman's
Bringing Up Bébé
is that of French
parents and educators drawing quite conservative views and practices from Rousseau. To us Anglo-Saxons, our
disagreements about the man are over whether his radicalism is good or bad, not whether it exists at all.
And what does the dogma of original sin have to do with the good of civil society?
Just about everything. It's probably the most useful of the Christian doctrines to outsiders.
I knew a Midwestern Lutheran woman who spent decades teaching in the scruffier public schools of Los
Angeles County, which suffered from high turnover in staff. Though of Scandinavian background and quite
progressive on most things, this lady insisted that the single most reliable indicator that a teacher would
survive in the blackboard jungle was a strong belief in original sin. One is prepared for the worst.
Another excellent essay by M. Guyenot. I recommend his From Yahweh to Zionism to all.
" I believe that
modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as "God" in the Old
Testament."
Indeed. George Bernard Shaw observed this in the Preface to his Back to Methuselah. Darwinism conquered
the popular mind, not just biologists, because the people sought relief from the constant surveillance of
the Calvinist God. It was only later -- too late -- when they discovered what else they had thrown away. Hence
Shaw and Bergson's "Vitalism" and later "Intelligent Design."
The attempt to navigate between Biblical religion and atheistic Science reminds me of the suggestion by
religious scholar Arthur Versluis and others that there is a third path -- Hermeticism -- that crops up
periodically in the Western tradition -- basing belief in God, immortality and higher dimensions not in
Hebrew fairy tales, nor limiting experience to the level of everyday materialism.
There is something unique about the French. They love to exaggerate (always in a positive way) their bloody
and criminal history. Robespierre was a terrorist.
Hello Laurent,
Very much appreciated your article and your other articles . And thank you for mentioning my movie:
Expelled. I was one of the Producers. We certainly appreciated Ben's contribution
Some nice historical work from Dr Laurent Guyénot above
Quite right too to denounce the Abrahamic 'God' as
un ugly, terrorising, in fact demonic figure 'eternal torture hell' is one of the most evil notions ever
invented
And tho we all need spirituality – having a 'god-shaped hole' otherwise in our lives
What needs to be understood is that Deism-type views are not sustainable, not genuinely transmissable to
succeeding generations
Note that all these deists, essentially exist in a one-generation-only space of rejecting their childhood
religion, intellectualising a less brutal form of it but then it fades away, there are few adherents which
continue only a stream of similar people, rejecting their childhood religion and staying in the deist or
unitarian half-way house for only their own lives
Faith cannot thrive without ritual, ceremony, practice in fact more important than ideas
E.g., Japan is full of shinto – buddhist rituals, lovingly maintained it is not an issue whether one
truly 'believes' in the goddesses and gods etc the practices yet sustain for thousands of years
Deism fades and becomes dusty books on the shelf
Jewish writer Marcus Eli Ravage said the biggest crime of Jews was wiping out local indigenous pagan
religions, replacing them with Christian and Islamic i.e. judaic fabrications, and supplanting paganism with
Jewish lore in its place, shoving Jewish tales into our brains
But paganism in the west is also a sorry-ass affair, as far as we know, with disgusting animal sacrifices
etc, and big deficiencies in thought and practice
The unique thing from ancient India, is the truly unique wonderful yoga meditation etc traditions
offering direct experience of the divine, spiritual ecstasies accessible at almost any time for those of us
who enter into these realms
In the West, the south and east asian traditions have slight echoes in stoicism, but in general we are
missing something precious, however deep we dig into what is left of paganism that was not burned by the
abrahamic fanatics
Ancient India's most beloved story, the Bhagavad-Gita, in 10 minutes – God stops time itself, to explain
to a troubled warrior what life is all about 'Whoever thinks he can truly kill, or be killed, is under an
illusion – no one truly dies the divine is already within you there are many paths to more fully re-join
with that divinity the question now is just what is the right course, what is your duty So be brave, and
Fight! Have no fear '
I found this article quite interesting. The book never seems to be closed on Robespierre and Rousseau, and
for good reason, as the clash of ideas presented here continues to this day.
Is that so .did he say that.you mean like human sacrifice to the corn god.atzec relegion was bad for the
heart.on the other hand a little african vodoo is a danger to the health of chickens in general.
More
squat than squawk
"Jewish writer Marcus Eli Ravage said the biggest crime of Jews was wiping out local indigenous pagan
religions, replacing them with Christian and Islamic i.e. judaic fabrications, and supplanting paganism with
Jewish lore in its place, shoving Jewish tales into our brains"
@gsjackson
LG is just another old Revolutionary whose ideas always lead to some form of The Terror. He is no better
than those Russians who felt that if only they removed the Tsar, and rejected a Constitutional monarch, that
fairness would reign.
Robespierre may not have been quite as monstrous as those who took him down, but he
was nonetheless a monster whose works served Satan.
It is either Christ and Christendom or some form of revolutionary chaos. If Russia is moving toward
reviving Christendom, then Russia will save the civilization. If Russia is moving to promote more
gnosticism, more hermeticism, more freemason tolerance of anything that claims some nebulous faith in some
type creator, then Russia promotes what is necessary for the Hell hole that devours us today.
@Ghali
French revolutionaries who wish to pretend that they their favorite revolutionary butchers were actually
good guys love to praise French revolution.
Either France begins to recreate Christendom and become once
again Eldest Daughter of the Church, or France will die a suicide.
The universalist unitarians that Guyenot lauds who then rule what once was France will be Mohammedan, and
their bankers will be Jewish.
Robespierre 'reluctantly' joining the 'Comité de salut public'? He was the first to propose the
establishment of a 'Revolutionary Tribunal that had to deal with the "traitors" and "enemies of the people"
in August 1792. The Tribunal was re-established by Danton and Robespierre in October 1793 and Robespierre
was its principal purveyor. He was the father of 'La Terreur'. The imposition of his ridiculous 'Cult of the
Supreme Being' coincides with the peak of Terror (when he was personally responsible for nearly 800
executions a month) and the reason of his demise. People did not appreciate it and Robespierre's answer was
to draft a new list of public enemies who would be sent before the tribunal and executed and passing the
infamous Law of 22 Prairial. That was too much even for the other revolutionary criminals.
In essence he was as anti-Christian as his mentors Rousseau, Voltaire, as all the sacred monsters of the
'Enlightnment' and his enemies the atheists. He was really the 'Executioner of the Vendee'. You won't expect
(I hope) anyone to take someone like Melenchon seriously.
Was he a mason? Maybe not, with a 'party card', so to speak, but he wallowed in the Masonic cesspool that
engulfed France in the 18th century. His grand father was a mason ("his father, who died in Germany, was of
English origin; this may explain the shade of Puritanism in his character", if you believe Lamartine). There
is little doubt that he met Adam Weishaupt, therefore an 'Illuminatus' and a fanatical one at that.
Maybe he was a tragic figure, "overwhelmed by a political blindness that bordered on the pathetic or
madness, he refused to understand that he lived in a time other than that of the Roman Republic", but no
less sinister ('There was softness, but of a sinister character', again if you believe Lamartine). An
"autistic" that drifted slowly but surely towards the "crime against humanity" that he would have surely
committed if the technical resources of the 18th century had allowed mass exterminations"(Joël Schmidt,
Robespierre, 2011, p. 229-230).
Therefore, there is no reason to consider that, in Robespierre's speeches, "Supreme Being" meant
anything else than God.
The fact remains he did not simply use the word "God". The French language does have a word for 'it'.
From a theological point of view, he is also asserting a 'continum' of "being" with a "supreme" being on the
tippy top of the ("not masonic!!!!") pyramid.
That which is created by God and is the animating principle of
Men
Animals
Vegetables
No, Robespierre did not have the same idea of God as did the Faithful but this incessant attempt to
rewrite history is not surprising but it should be noted that what it really is is projection by an atheist
author who is always searching for "proof" that will justify his refusal to accept God as He revealed
Himself to us.
Said otherwise, he has an endless series of authorities which he has replaced God with
Now he certainly is not fooling those have the Faith once delivered and I doubt he has fooled himself,
which is why he is always rabbiting on about this bll shite
While the article's criticisms of dogmatic religion are valid, the notion of a non-dogmatic 'supreme being'
and the rest is pure malarkey, to wit .
The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or
commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and
providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of
the social contract and the laws:
Here is the reality, if there is a 'God' or 'supreme being' he is murderous and wicked beyond belief, as
he/she/it has created a world populated by creatures that survive by eating each other, literally. We live
in a sort of hell, and the fact that we have tried to create a world based on kindness and justice is a
tribute to the human race, and certainly not to any supreme being.
He shared the primary trait of atheism (as does the author of this piece seemingly), which is a revulsion
towards the concept of personal moral duties and judgment. They want an all-powerful being to relieve them
of their existential angst (for hardcore atheists, "reason" and "progress" fill this role), but one that
also doesn't particularly care for how his creation operates and isn't judgmental, therefore all things
which the atheist can rationalize as 'harmless' are permitted (sexual perversion, homosexuality, usury,
occassionally murdering political opponents, and of course perverting worship of the almighty toward the
whims of the state). It's not disgust with God in the old testament which leads to criticism, it's the
atheist's own bad character which leads them to soothe their conscience with a bad-faith criticism of
scripture (this libel is of course both faulty of content and circular, in that Christian morals are the
basis of the criticism which flow from the same God they supposedly criticize).
The eternally pathetic
Dawkins says that from his misreading of scripture he finds Yahweh a racist, misogynistic homophobe. What
else need be said in support of Yahweh's good character? In the western world, these are the words that
professional mediocrities like Dawkins use to describe anyone of any moral worth at all.
@Clyde Wilson
Dear Mr. Wilson. "Hilary is a museum quality Yankee?"
Are you the author of that great quote and numerous
books and articles?
If you are, God Bless you Sir. I have read your work for a LONG time at Chronicles, in books, at The
Abbeyville Institute etc.
You are national treasure and it is a crime against culture that you are not prompted as are the cultural
cranks and commie creeps most American get their ideas from.
We disagree on this. IMHO the author is '
writing
' history. Here is trying to whitewash the fact
that "Orthodox Christian" Putin is pushing the "Supreme Being" line (even though all major recognized
religions in Russia in fact call 'it' God), lest the captive humanity analysing the entrails of the ruling
classes' maneuvers catch a hint of
the unity of ideological purpose of the ruling classes worldwide
.
A fascinating take on Robespierre. I, too, was always taught that he was some
kind of Mason whose 'Supreme Being' was just some kind of personification of Cartesian reason. But if your
account of his beliefs here is accurate, then I would have to say he was a much more substantial figure than
I initially suspected.
One thing that really shines through in your essay is how very patriotic Robespierre was. I daresay, had
the Papacy been French, he might well have remained a traditional Catholic!
"The Thermidorians -- thus have Robespierre's conquerors and successors been dubbed -- sought not only to
justify their coup d'état of July 1794 (the month of Thermidor in the revolutionary calendar) but to
evade the opprobrium they shared with Robespierre and his comrades for deeds done during the agonizing
crisis the previous year, during the Terror. The vengeful malice of the Thermidorians was partly
successful: their caricature of Robespierre has proved durable."
Very much like what Krushchev and, in their own way, the Trotskyites did to Stalin after his death as
well. And of course, virtually everyone's still doing it to Hitler.
'eternal torture hell' is one of the most evil notions ever invented
It was invented by the Catholic church. Fortunately, thanks to Reformation's products of literacy for us
rabble, bibles in the vernacular languages, and individual free will, we can see the lies of the Great Whore
for ourselves.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Ezekiel
18:20
As for God in the constitution, it's the thin end of the wedge towards theocracy- a goal that the Vatican
has been sharpening its knives for for a long time. The papacy abhors separation of church and state.
@Jake
Having had easy access to 3 of the greatest university libraries in the USA and being able to read French
pretty well, I'm an amateur historian very familiar with the despicable land and property grab known as the
French Revolution.
I'm not going to bother to refute this author's outright lies. Too much trouble and can't be bothered to
cite the books, except for Abbe Burrel's , Simon Schema's somebody last name Batz, and Renee Boudereau's
memoirs.
If you live in Los Angeles and can read French, you can go to the rare book section of Loyola university
library in Westchester near the airport and read Renee Boudereau's memoirs. It's easy to read, short simple
factual sentences like Camus.
BTW, it was a death penalty offense just to be a catholic priest or nun in France during the worst of the
French Revolution. Not spying for England, not active in the counter revolution, not even saying mass,
marrying and baptizing, just being a catholic priest or nun.
Little known fact. The Devil's Island penal colony was created by the French revolutionaries for catholic
priests. The sight of gray haired parish priests and nuns who ran the local hospital before the
revolutionaries closed it lined up to be guillotined caused counter revolutionary sentiment.
So the less radical revolutionaries created the penal colonies of Devil's Island as a way to get rid of
the priests without the public spectacle of beheading the headmaster of the local high schools , and
hospital administrators.
Confiscation of church property meant closing every hospital, orphanage, mental health asylum and most of
the schools in France for years. Storming of the Bastille to " free" the prisoners. 7 prisoners , everyone a
severely sick dangerous mental patient sent there because all the insane asylums, all of which were run by
the church were closed.
Closing the high schools really pissed off the upper bourgeoisie because that's where their sons and
daughters learned the skills needed to remain in the upper bourgeoisie
What a crock of lies and propaganda.
Who gives a rat's ass about some homocidal maniac's constitution that was only in effect for a few months
anyway before his government was overthrown with another round of executions?
I once counted the number of governments France had between 1789 and 1816. I think maybe 8 different
forms of government.
If the rest of this writer's articles are as false wrong and just plain ignorant as this one, nothing he
writes is to be believed.
At least it's not some kind of quadruple exponent new math about the Chinese Plague killing off half the
population of the earth.
So Robespierre was fighting against the atheists. Good. And his "Etre Supreme" wasn't another Freemason
humanism. Fine.
But unlike Putin who only wants to enshrine the Russians "faith in god" in the constitution, Robespierre
wanted "the priests who submitted to the pope" to take an oath on the Civil Constitution. That was a very
bad idea, even if the pope was a foreigner. Putin doesn't try to officially mix in the church's business, he
just want to make sure the atheists/masonics zionists/communists from the West won't be allowed to take
power again in Russia. States shouldn't officially pretend to mix in church's organization.
And while Robespierre didn't try to repel the official masonic "Droits de l'homme" religion which teaches
that human beings are God, Putin is just doing it by officially putting God above men, and he is damn right.
The West and its metaphysically impoverished societies would do well to consider Zen (Chán) , an atheistic
philosophy that is transcendent and moral without concepts of eternal reward or punishment, without
scriptures, without a priestly caste, without "worship". It simply states that the simultaneity between mind
and Mind is all that
IS
. Once this is internalized, one continues daily life as before, but with a
deeper understanding of it without anxiety, without unbalanced desires but with with a sense of wonder at
all that unfolds in the course of time, including one's own death, the time of transition.
Living in the West, as I do, I see no need to criticize the dominant religious beliefs however
incomprehensible I might find them. I live in what once was Christendom, honoring and respecting the moral
and ethical beliefs and customs of these societies, now sickeningly secularized to the degree that natural
law is openly and approvingly flouted. The metaphysics of Zen is quite simple in theory, but requires
self-discipline to put into practice. Self-discipline seems to be something the consumerist societies of the
West have forgotten.
"There is little doubt that he met Adam Weishaupt, therefore an 'Illuminatus' and a fanatical one at
that."
All this blather about "supreme being" does sound awfully Masonic, but I believe far more in judging
people by their actions than by their words, likely because of numerous painful experiences dealing with
lawyers and especially jewish lawyers who will say anything they think can get away with.
As for God in the constitution, it's the thin end of the wedge towards theocracy- a goal that the
Vatican has been sharpening its knives for for a long time. The papacy abhors separation of church and
state.
Imagine unironically believing "seperation of church and state" is a real thing. An official religion is
a prerequisite for the existence of governmnt.
Fortunately, thanks to Reformation's products of literacy for us rabble, bibles in the vernacular
languages, and individual free will, we can see the lies of the Great Whore for ourselves.
Do you know literally anything about theology? Orthodox and Catholic christians believe in the concept
free will, it is Protestants (not all sects but some) that reject it. Get a clue.
There is no question that Putin has a very cozy relationship with Chabad,
For
a different perspective of Putin's changes to the Russian Constitution see
PUTIN TO ADD NOAHIDE LAW TO RUSSIAN CONSTITUTION
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B8MQ4lHsxwg/
My terribly simplistic understanding of Laurent's rather long and certainly scholarly exposition, is that he
feels that for the sake of science and the adults we can declare Santa dead, but please not make any attempt
upon His life for the sake of the children and Christmas.
@Lockean Proviso
In ancient Egypt, people who did bad deeds were punished in the afterlife. A deceased person, goes before a
scale of justice. His/her heart is weighed against a feather. He/she is asked 42 divine principles. If the
deceased heart weights too much with too many bad deeds, it is devoured by Ammit.
The idea of punishment for bad deeds is a very old concept for humanity. It needs to come back for the
warmongering neocons and regime changers of our day.
Here is how the deceased goes to the scale of justice. The 42 divine principles, good deeds, decides the
deceased's fate.
In Spellbook/Chapter 30B of The Papyrus of Ani titled "Chapter for Not Letting Ani's Heart Create
Opposition Against Him, in the Gods' Domain," we find a petitioner of ma'at (justice/truth) before the
scales of justice (iconography ma'at/goddess maat). Anubis, the setter of the scales, has placed the
petitioner's heart-soul (Ka) on one side of the scale, its counter-weight is the feather of truth (Shu).
The Spellbook/Chapter for Not Letting Ani's Heart Create Opposition Against Him in the Gods' Domain is
where the petitioner must pronounce, and his/her weighted heart/soul (Ka) will reveal the truth or
non-truth of each affirmative of the 42 pronouncements.
(Am-mut) – "Dead-Swallower" Stationed just to the side of the scales in the Hall of Double Truth [see
Ma'at], Ammit's function is to await the postmortem judgment of a soul (envisioned as the deceased's
heart being weighed on a scale against the feather of Ma'at) and then, if the soul fails the test, Ammit
snatches up the heart and devours it, causing the soul to cease to exist. As the ultimate punishment of
the wicked, Ammit is depicted as a hideous composite of the animals Kemet's people feared most: crocodile
snout and head, feline claws and front, and a hippopotamus body and back legs. Ammit is also sometimes
referred to as "Great of Death," and papyri depict Her patiently watching Yinepu weighing a man's heart
against the feather of Ma'at.
This has been a very refreshing article for several reasons that should be obvious. I look forward to
reading more of this kind in the future.
"If voted in the upcoming referendum, it would consecrate the
civilizational schism that is likely to define the history of our civilization in the coming century: in the
West, the post-modernist project of liberating man from his human nature, to produce an uprooted,
transgendered, upgraded man, Homo Deus. In the East, the choice of honoring and protecting our spiritual and
anthropological roots, to produce the genuine thing: Mars and Venus, virile men and feminine women grateful
to their Creator for each other, reveling in their fertile complementarity."
I'm not sure I've read a more succinct summary of what is happening to our civilization.
Hell is hardly an invention of the Catholic Church – it is found in King James, Douay and Orthodox
Bibles:
"And I saw a great white throne and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away:
and there was no place found for them And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the
throne. And the books were opened: and another book was opened, which was the book of life. And the dead
were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up
the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged,
every one according to their works. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second
death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the pool of fire.
For the eighth time over the past decade, Russian authorities told a foreign Chabad rabbi living in
Russia to leave the country.
Josef Marozof, a New York native who began working 12 years ago for Chabad in the city of Ulyanovsk,
400 miles east of Moscow, was ordered earlier this week to leave because the FSB security service said he
had been involved in unspecified "extremist behavior."
First, there are 3 sides to every story, his, hers and the
truth.
Second, don't listen to what he says, watch what he does.
Castro, Lyndon Johnson, Hildabeast, the Civil Rights For all but Whites laws, , Mao, Lenin Stalin
Trotsky, Pelosi, every liberal do gooder idealist like Robespierre and the rest talk do gooderism while we
watch them looting, confiscating and slaughtering.
Author reminds me of all the dumb naive liberal American and European soi disant idiot intellectual
visionary do gooders who visited Russia during the 1939s and came back with glowing reports of the wonderful
society of the future.
" atheism , which is a revulsion towards the
concept of personal moral duties and judgment."
That is exactly the opposite of the truth. For openers, atheisim is merely the lack of a particular
superstition. Secondly, most atheists believe that morality and truth are so important that they deserve a
better foundation than a bunch of ancient Jewish superstitions taken on faith.
Those old superstitions were designed to promote faith (believe what you are told to believe) and
self-sacrifice (don't defend yourself) because they make people easier to rob and rule.
The only thing that enshrining a vague-God in the constitution would accomplish is the Tribe eventually
twisting the meaning to meet the definition and needs of whatever demon they worship.
Propose to enshrine the specific Indo-European God in Constitutions and then we have something to talk
about.
@Anon
The civil constitution Robespierre demanded priests take an oath to with the death penalty if they didn't
lasted less than a year. The author is writing about a constitution that lasted less than a year.
I think it was 6 governments between 1789 and 1800 and more after 1800 each with its own written or
implied constitution.
Why not just write an article that it's good the new Russian constitution will mention God?
Instead of bringing in this ridiculous conventional version of the French Revolution? I assume he's
trying to impress us with his scholarly knowledge, but he sure hasn't impressed me with his fantasies about
Robespierre.
That's like saying there is no such person as a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, or a Maoist. A Mohammedan has
much in common with all three. If anything, his prophet was a blend of all three founders, with a fair bit
of Joseph Smith, Napoleon, and Hitler to boot.
If you mean Hillary, she has no more Yankee blood than does Donald Trump, and less than Obama's 1%. She
also supports income taxation and the New Deal. (As does much of the so-called "alt-right.") No Yankee, she.
I can't wait for the day when Intelligent Design research will be funded in Russian universities,
rather than censored as it is in the U.S. (watch Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligent
Allowed).
I was enjoying the walk you were leading me on until I stepped in this dog shit. I'm sure the rest of the
journey was fascinating. But I avoid crazy as a rule.
@Alden
The one's who managed to make their way back were the lucky ones. Thousands didn't, either being executed,
or Gulaged, where they indeed 'found work', but, not of the type they were counting on.
The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia by Tim Tzouliadis is a 2008 book published by
Penguin Books. It tells the story of thousands of Americans who immigrated to the Soviet Union in the
1930s. The vast majority of these Americans were executed or sent to the Gulag by Joseph Stalin's
government.
In a related revisionist hangout,
Robert Sepehr
has long been exposing ancient masonic secrets, his
videos just keep getting better.
here
is his channel.
@John Howard
Those superstitions sustained many generations through many trials and tribulations. Science, industry, and
affluence tempt people to believe they don't need God, then in time of trouble they rediscover Him.
Re: Pompeo and his West Point clique and their associates, I have not spent much time on
it, didn't seem like a useful or entertaining thing to do, but my impression is they have
lots of plans and very little grasp of what is required to carry them out. (One thinks of
Modi here.) This has been ongoing since the Iranians shot our fancy drone down there last
year. The first shot across the bow. We are now withdrawing from Syria, Iraq &
Afghanistan, however haltingly, as it has dawned on the commanders on the ground there how
exposed they really are to Iranian fire, and that of their allies. Israel seems to be
struggling with the same problem, how to continue to bully when the bullied can very
effectively shoot back?
Many unseemly things being said about Crozier and the Teddy R. situation too. Lot's of
heat, very little light. Trump says there is light at the end of the tunnel, I seem to
remember that from somewhere in the past. I think that's about where we are again.
Permanent/long term expats are usually not your best source of information about a
country. Being informed of something concerning China by a Chinese-American friend isn't
necessarily authoritative. Consider someone in China asking an expat from New England about
eating habits in Mississippi: "It's disgusting! They eat opossums! Road kill raccoons that
they find on the side of the highway! Raccoon balloons! People from America's South are
filthy!"
Perhaps people in America's South do not always eat road kill, but people from other parts
of the US believe they do. You have the same kinds of beliefs in China about peoples in
different regions.
Anyway,
here is what the insufferably jingoistic and national chauvinistic
Washington Bezos Post has to say about China's wet markets reopening:
"The prevalence of food-borne microbial illness in developing East Asia suggests that far
from being cesspits of disease, wet markets do a good job of providing households with clean,
fresh produce."
"...the intelligence agencies were warning about information derived from medical sources
in China that suggested viruses were developing that might become a pandemic, but the
politicians, most particularly those in the White House, chose to take no action. He writes
that " the Trump administration has cumulatively failed, both in taking seriously the
specific, repeated intelligence community warnings about a coronavirus outbreak and in
vigorously pursuing the nationwide response initiatives commensurate with the predicted
threat. The federal government alone has the resources and authorities to lead the relevant
public and private stakeholders to confront the foreseeable harms posed by the virus.
Unfortunately, Trump officials made a series of judgments (minimizing the hazards of
COVID-19) and decisions (refusing to act with the urgency required) that have needlessly made
Americans far less safe."
"The article cites evidence that the intelligence community was collecting disturbing
information on possibly developing pathogens in China and was, as early as January, preparing
analytical reports that detailed just what was happening while also providing insights into
how devastating the global proliferation of a highly contagious and potential lethal virus
might be. One might say that the intel guys called it right, but were ignored by the White
House, which, per Zenko, acted with "unprecedented indifference, even willful
negligence...."
@bevin #8
In January? Really? Seems like the highly paid and budgeted intelligence agencies should be
able to do a better job of predicting the nCOV threat before China instituted a shutdown on
January 23 due to its view that nCOV was a problem.
Frankly, seems more like intel agency ass covering than anything else.
"... Modernizing our strategic nuclear forces is a top priority for the @DeptofDefense and the @POTUS to protect the American people and our allies. ..."
"... As a pandemic ravages the nation, a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities ..."
There is no conspiracy, they didn't make up false documents to start a Russian investigation,
oh wait they did.. I just read that Bloomberg spent north of $500,000,000.00 to become
president and you want me to believe the Russians spent 1% of that and got better results..
You have to be a special kind of stupid.
US Politicians never forget that for the past seventy years russophobia and sinophobic
racism- both of which have deep roots in the culture- formed the bases of the ideology of
anti-communism.
The Democrats, totally discredited by the 2016 Election campaign and decades of
Clinton/Obama swings towards the right and away from the old New Deal constituencies, began
by accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians- who most of the DNC deliberately suggested,
and probably genuinely thought, were Communists.
Trump's response is now to revive the anti-Peoples Republic witch-hunts of the past to use
against the Democrats.
We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them,
attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their
lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military
adventure since 1945 - the all purpose anti-gook racism that saw them through the wars
against Japan, Korea, IndoChina and the People's Republic.
It is going to make the spectacle of two monkeys throwing shit at each other seem
positively restrained - the Democrats howling about Russia and the Republicans, reverting to
type, starting up lynch mobs against China.
By a clever move of the US intelligence agencies they are left without a choice as to support Trump in 2020 election is as idiotic
as to support Biden.
U.S. intelligence community, through its preferred propaganda sheet the New York Times, is
now reporting that
Russia is taking advantage of the coronavirus crisis to spread disinformation through Europe and also in the U.S.
In particular, Putin has escalated a campaign-by-innuendo to reduce confidence in the outcome of the upcoming 2020 presidential
election.
In any event, the Russians are too late as the Democratic and Republican parties' behavior has already convinced many Americans
that voting in November will be a waste of time.
As RT UK launches, attacks on the channel in the British media have stepped up
The latest is a piece by Mr. Cyril Waugh-Monger, a very important newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a patron of the Senator
Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea' and 'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria.'
Dear socially inferior person reading this article. My name is Cyril Waugh-Monger (I'm called 'Mr Terribly Pompous Neo-Con' by
my friends) and I'm here to tell you why on no account should you watch RT and why you should be making complaints to Ofcom (a British
bureacracy which regulates TV) about this dreadful channel so that in the interests of 'free speech' and 'democracy' we can get it
off air.
1. RT doesn't peddle Russophobia
Outrageously, RT doesn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. It doesn't join in with the demonization of Russia and its leader.
How can we have a channel which is watched by people in Britain, which doesn't do that? We neocons say that demonization of Russia
and its leader is compulsory. How dare RT not do as we say!
RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media
2. RT is sometimes rude to bankers
There's a man on RT called Max Keiser and he is often very rude to bankers. Why, he has even called for them to face the death
penalty. Such disrespect to our financial elites is shocking and should not be allowed in a free society.
3. Its coverage of the MH17 crash
Shockingly, RT commentators didn't rush to blame Vladimir Putin for the air disaster within seconds of the news breaking. Some
even said that we should wait for the forensic evidence before any statements apportioning guilt were made. Others said that we couldn't
rule out that the plane was downed by an another aircraft. This failure to come and say loud and clear "Putin personally shot down
the plane with a missile he made and fired with his own hands" within minutes of the crash is clear evidence of RT's bias and why
it must be taken off the air.
4. RT's 'pundits' include people who aren't neocons and 'liberal interventionists'
This is truly scandalous: RT gives airtime to people who don't support the West's policy of endless war and who opposed airstrikes
on Syria last year. Why, it's even broadcast interviews with the convener of the Stop the War coalition – and has a regular weekly
show fronted by George Galloway! This is unconscionable. Only people who support Western foreign policy should be allowed to express
their views on international affairs on television, not 'cranks' and 'fanatics' who oppose attacking a sovereign state in the Middle
East on deceitful grounds every couple of years. Why, if RT had been around in 2003, it would no doubt have given airtime to anti-war
'conspiracy theorists' who would have told viewers that Iraq had no WMDs – and claimed, fantastically – that Bush and Blair were
making it all up.
5. RT provides airtime to genuine socialists and genuine conservatives
This is really terrible: RT interviews people who oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, from both the left and the right. It's
given the microphone to socialists, communists, greens, and 'extremists' on the right, like Ron Paul. These people should not be
allowed to express their views on television; they are 'cranks' and should be totally marginalized. Only those who support the hegemonic
consensus should be allowed on TV. It's very important that in order to protect free speech and democracy, alternative opinions are
not heard.
6. RT pundits have 'extremist' links
I monitor the people who appear on RT very, very closely and I can tell you that there was once a case of an RT interviewee who
had a link on his website to another website which had a link to another website which had a link to another website – which denied
the Holocaust and said that little green men from Mars were ruling the US.
After considerable research, I also found that another RT pundit once attended a conference where a fellow invitee had once sat
at a restaurant table, a few days after another person who had actually praised Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Josef Stalin in a
magazine article published in North Korea in 1962.
7. RT is anti-semitic
Ok, I've got no evidence of this, but I'll bung it in anyway as it sounds good.
8. RT has broadcast documentaries on the wars in Yugoslavia which don't blame the Serbs for everything
This is totally unacceptable.
9. RT has had 'experts' on its programs who have made some very strong criticisms of Israel
This too is totally unacceptable. Anyone with a theory or definition that differs from Western minded politicians is demonized
for voicing their opinion.
10. RT pundits have often ridiculed leading American policymakers
For instance, when the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that "you just don't in the 21st century" invade another country
on "completely trumped up pretext," some people on RT had the audacity to say "What about Iraq?" This lack of respect towards a leading
American politician is appalling, and in a free society ought not to be allowed. The correct procedure whenever a leading US political
figure speaks is to tug one's forelock.
11. RT's coverage of the conflict in Syria
In 2011-13, we had so-called 'experts' on Syria telling us on RT that some of the freedom-fighting pro-democracy rebels were actually
fanatical terrorists who were guilty of committing atrocities. This was obviously a clear lie. Islamist terrorists like ISIS have
only been active in Syria since 2014 and of course, it's all the fault of President Assad and Russia.
12. RT interviews lots of people whose views I do not share
It ought not to be allowed! Aren't we supposed to live in a democracy?
13. The most important reason: RT is a threat
More and more people are watching it – which is why me and my little group of neocons and 'liberal interventionists' are so worried
and stepping up our attacks on the station and denigrating those people who appear on it.
The next big war is going to be much harder for us to 'sell' to the plebs, because we are no longer in control of the narrative
as we were in 2003, before the Iraq war. Oh, what happy days those were!
Don't watch RT because we really don't want you to 'question more.' We want you to question less. It's much easier for us that
way.
This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In
Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to
blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random
cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system,
despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.
It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests
about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has
been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.
Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used.
It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or
completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about
"failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin
exploited it for propaganda.
One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of
highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the
Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs
consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site.
Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more
Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".
By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance
"Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is
probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a
10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.
Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist,
perhaps?
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
"... "promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation's security," ..."
"... "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination, ..."
"... "information warfare against the United States of America ..."
"... The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in court. ..."
"... The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13 individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques." ..."
"... Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing in January 2019 that Concord was leaking them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. ..."
The US is dropping the much-hyped indictment for 'election
meddling' against a company supposedly behind the so-called Russian troll farm, closing the opening chapter of special counsel Robert
Mueller's Russiagate investigation. Further pursuing the case against Concord Management & Consulting LLC, "promotes neither
the interests of justice nor the nation's security," the Department of Justice wrote to the federal judge overseeing the case
on Monday, in a
motion to drop the charges.
DOJ lawyers cited "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination,
" saying only that they submitted further details in a classified addendum.
Wow.The DOJ moves to dismiss the charges against the Russian Company (Concord) who conducted the alleged "information warfare
against the US"The troll case will be dismissed w/ prejudice.How embarrassing for Team Mueller.
pic.twitter.com/wfZ78EWgKc
Concord was one of the three companies – the Internet Research Agency is another – and 13 individuals charged in February 2018
with waging "information warfare against the United States of America " using social media.
The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States
and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really
changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in
court.
The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13
individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery
documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques."
But the Russians *did* show up, got to claim they were innocent until proven guilty, availed themselves of discovery, tied
up the court in time, cost hundreds of thousands of $ in legal bills for DOJ, and gave Mueller a few black eyes in the process,
and ended up victorious
Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing
in January 2019 that Concord was leaking
them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit
there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.
They still insisted that Russia had "meddled " in the election, but there too the case proved a problem. Concord successfully
petitioned Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in May last year to rebuke the prosecutors for presenting their allegations as facts.
This is not to say that the DOJ is ready to disavow 'Russiagate' as a debunked conspiracy theory, however. Though the Concord
case was dropped, the charges against the Internet Research Agency and the 13 Russian individuals were not. Given that none of them
have a presence in the US, and have not dignified the indictment with a response, it is unclear how – if at all – the DOJ intends
to proceed with the case.
Keeping it on the books may keep the flames of 'Russiagate' alive, though, which is very convenient for the media and others heavily
invested in the narrative of Moscow somehow menacing US elections, despite not a shred of actual evidence being presented to back
it up.
For a snapshot in time, this was the NYT homepage after the Russian troll farm indictment back in February 2018. Russia, we
were told, "is engaged in a virtual war against the United States." pic.twitter.com/Z0xXCZoT9P
Recently, I was watching the old Looney Tunes Cartoons with my Grandchild and we were
watching, "Duck Dodges in the 21st and a Half Century"
I don't know if you've watched this cartoon starring Daffy Duck. You can view it here https://vimeo.com/76668594
This cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme
parody of life. But while watching this cartoon, it dawned on me that this cartoon is an
almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
I could write an article on this but I think we'll leave it as a note with a snide laugh to
be had by all.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
"... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
"... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
"... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
Another presidential election year is upon us, and the
intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks
like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be
the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, The New York Timesran
a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The
story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by
intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try
to get President Trump re-elected."
The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the
intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as
Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials
also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.
It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing.
CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated
assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence
community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately
assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have
evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials
said."
According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not
agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in
office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would
work to reelect such a Russia hawk.
Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its
largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the
Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms
control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and
ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began
developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.
The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the
US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that
it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is
estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia
and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to
limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other
two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not
get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US
and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.
Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it,
and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300
million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also
calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish
policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy
gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.
The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia.
Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop
presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and
much more .
Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a
"puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct
confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take
superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's
loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make
nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.
The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January
2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first,
a falsehood
spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion.
But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was
prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no
evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on
Russian state-funded media.
On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by
US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a
briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The
Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the
foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt
Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently
played into the Russiagate narrative.
Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his
supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember
2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our
elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me,"
Sanders said.
In
comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on
Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the
story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down
Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus.
Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations
were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.
Political analyst James Carville
appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said,
"Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I
promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a
joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders
campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but
the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything
that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."
This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned
by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to
Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere
in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election
in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the
Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had
nothing to do with the election. A study on the
IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related
to the election."
Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and
providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support
this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview
–
has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.
Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a
clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and
Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of
the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more
informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks
would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.
Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few
months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and
"stir controversy" just fine on their own.
These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President
Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is
inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards
Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders
plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy
change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in
Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
"... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing, according to Business Insider . "But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof," Business Insider noted. "A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or conditions." ..."
"... Congress needs to immediately pass a bill appropriating funding to cover 100% of the cost of all coronavirus testing & care within the United States. We will not have a chance at containing it otherwise. @tedlieu - as my rep, can you please ensure this is brought up? ..."
"... In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that "the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598 for taking them to the hospital." ..."
"... Last week, the Miami Herald reported that Osmel Martinez Azcue "received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270" after he visited a local hospital fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China. ..."
"... Did anyone expect the unconscionable greed of capitalism to cease when a public health crisis emerges? This is just testing for the virus, wait until a vaccine has been developed so expensive that the majority of the US populace can not afford it at all and people are dropping like flies. Wall Street, never-the-less, will continue to have its heydays ..."
"... The very idea that the defense and "Homeland" security budgets are bloated and additional funding approved year after year but the citizens of this country are not afforded 100% health coverage In a time of global health crisis that could become a pandemic. ..."
"Huge surprise medical bills [are] going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone." by
Jake Johnson, staff writer Public health
advocates, experts, and others are demanding that the federal government cover coronavirus testing and all related costs after several
reports detailed how Americans in recent weeks have been saddled with exorbitant bills following medical evaluations.
Sarah Kliff of the New York Times
reported Saturday
that Pennsylvania native Frank Wucinski "found a pile of medical bills" totaling $3,918 waiting for him and his three-year-old daughter
after they were released from government-mandated quarantine at Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, California.
"My question is why are we being charged for these stays, if they were mandatory and we had no choice in the matter?" asked Wucinski,
who was evacuated by the U.S. government last month from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.
"I assumed it was all being paid for," Wucinski told the Times . "We didn't have a choice. When the bills showed up, it was just
a pit in my stomach, like, 'How do I pay for this?'"
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing,
according
to Business Insider . "But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof,"
Business Insider noted. "A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or
conditions."
Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, told the Times that
"the most important rule of public health is to gain the cooperation of the population."
"There are legal, moral, and public health reasons not to charge the patients,"
Gostin said.
Congress needs to immediately pass a bill appropriating funding to cover 100% of the cost of all coronavirus testing & care
within the United States. We will not have a chance at containing it otherwise.
@tedlieu - as my rep, can you please ensure this
is brought up?
In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that "the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598
for taking them to the hospital."
"An additional $90 in charges came from radiologists who read the patients' X-ray scans and do not work for the hospital," Kliff
noted.
The CDC declined to respond when Kliff asked whether the federal government would cover the costs for patients like the Wucinskis.
The Intercept 's Robert Mackey
wrote
last Friday that the Wucinskis' situation spotlights "how the American government's response to a public health emergency, like trying
to contain a potential coronavirus epidemic, could be handicapped by relying on a system built around private hospitals and for-profit
health insurance providers."
We should be doing everything we can to encourage people with
#COVIDー19 symptoms to come forward.
Huge surprise medical bills is going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone, regardless
of if you are insured. https://t.co/KOUKTSFVzD
Play this tape to the end and you find people not going to the hospital even if they're really sick. The federal government
needs to announce that they'll pay for all of these bills https://t.co/HfyBFBXhja
Last week, the Miami Herald reported
that Osmel Martinez Azcue "received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270" after he visited a local hospital
fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China.
"He went to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he said he was placed in a closed-off room," according to the Herald . "Nurses
in protective white suits sprayed some kind of disinfectant smoke under the door before entering, Azcue said. Then hospital staff
members told him he'd need a CT scan to screen for coronavirus, but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first."
Azcue tested positive for the flu and was discharged. "Azcue's experience shows the potential cost of testing for a disease
that epidemiologists fear may develop into a public health crisis in the U.S.," the Herald noted.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, highlighted Azcue's case in a tweet last Friday.
"The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together," Sanders wrote. "We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits
over outrageous bills. Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and
public health."
Last week, as Common Dreams
reported , Sanders argued that the coronavirus outbreak demonstrates the urgent need for Medicare for All.
The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together. We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits over outrageous
bills.
Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and public health.
https://t.co/c4WQMDESHU
The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S.
surged by more than two
dozen over the weekend, bringing the total to 89 as the Trump administration continues to
publicly downplay the severity of the outbreak.
Dr. Matt McCarthy, a staff physician at NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital,
said
in an appearance on CNBC 's "Squawk Box" Monday morning that testing for the coronavirus is still not widely available.
"Before I came here this morning, I was in the emergency room seeing patients," McCarthy said. "I still do not have a rapid
diagnostic test available to me."
"I'm here to tell you, right now, at one of the busiest hospitals in the country, I don't have it at my finger tips," added
McCarthy. "I still have to make my case, plead to test people. This is not good. We know that there are 88 cases in the United
States. There are going to be hundreds by middle of week. There's going to be thousands by next week. And this is a testing issue."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Did anyone expect the unconscionable greed of capitalism to cease when a public health crisis emerges? This is just testing
for the virus, wait until a vaccine has been developed so expensive that the majority of the US populace can not afford it at
all and people are dropping like flies. Wall Street, never-the-less, will continue to have its heydays
A wall street bank or private predator may own your emergency room. A surprise bill may await your emergency treatment above
insurance payments or in some instances all of the bill.
An effort was made recently in congress to stop surprise billings but enough dems joined repubs to kill it. More important
to keep campaign dollars flowing than keep people alive.
fernSmerl 12h I know emergency rooms are being purchased by organizations like Tenet (because they are some of
the most expensive levels of care) and M.D.s provided by large agencies. I'm not as up on this as I should be but a friend of
mine tells me that some of this is illegal. I have received bills that were later discharged by challenge. This is worth investigating
further. Atlasoldie 11h Hmmmm A virus that
overwhelmingly kills the elderly and/or those with pre-exisitng conditions.
Sounds like a medical insurance companies wet dream. As well as .gov social security/medicare wet dream.
The very idea that the defense and "Homeland" security budgets are bloated and additional funding approved year after year
but the citizens of this country are not afforded 100% health coverage In a time of global health crisis that could become a pandemic.
And as has been stated, the unconscionable idea suggested that a possible vaccine (a long way away or perhaps not developed at
all) might not be affordable to the workers who pay the taxes that fund the government? That's insane.
Another example of "American Exceptionalism." China doesn't charge its coronavirus patients, neither does South Korea. I guess
they are simply backward countries.
I own my own home after years of hard work paying it off. It's the only thing of value, besides my old truck, that I have.
If I get the virus, I will stay home and try to treat it the best I can. I can't afford to go to the hospital and pay thousands in
medical bills, with the chance that they'll come after my possessions. America, the land of the _______. Fill in the blank. (Hint:
it's no longer free).
There are other ways to protect your home. Homesteading or living trust. I'm not good at this but I know there are ways to
do it. Hopefully, it would never come to that but outcomes are not certain even with treatment in this case.
As someone
who lost a mother at 5 years old I can sympathize with your grief in losing a daughter-in-law and especially seeing her four children
orphaned. However, I think you miss the point here: This is about we becoming a society invested in each others welfare and not a
company town that commodifies everything including the health and well being of us all.
As a revision it is better but flawed. It is a cost containment bill based on the same research as the republican plan with global
budgets and block grants.
Edited: I encourage you to read this: -ttps://www.rand.org/blog/2018/10/misconceptions-about-medicare-for-all.html Giovanna-Lepore10h oldie:
Part D
Higher education is not free but they do need to become free for the students and payed by us as a society.
Part D is a scam, a Republican scam also supported by corporate democrats because of its profit motive and its privatization
Medicare only covers 80% and does not cover eye and dental care and older folks especially need these services. Medicaid helps but there are limits and one cannot necessarily use it where one needs to go.
Expanded, Improved Medicare For All is a vast improvement. because it covers everyone in one big pool and, therefore, much more dignified
than the rob Paul to pay peter system we have.
Social Security too can be improved. Why should it simply be based on the income of the person which means that a person working
in a low paying job in a capitalist system gone wild with greed will often work until they die.
Pell grants can be eliminated when we have what the French have: publicly supported education for everyone.
The demise of unions certainly did not help but it was part of the long strategy of the Right to privatize everything to the enrichment
of the few.
The overall competence that Canada is handling this outbreak, compared to the USA, is stark. First world (Canada) versus third-world
(USA). Testing is practically available for free, to any suspect person, sick or not, as Toronto alone can run 1000 tests a day and
have results in 4 hours. That is far more than all the US's capacity for 330 million people.
I wonder how long before Canada closes its borders to USAns? Me and my wife (both in a vulnerable age/medical group) should seriously
consider fleeing to my brother's place in Toronto as the first announced cases in Pittsburgh are probably only days away. What about
our poor cat though? We could try to smuggle her across the border, but she is a loud and talkative kitty
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures – but the
"low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals
shop there and they think it's being hyped by media. Did get this from my NJ Sen. Menendez –
Center for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC)
There is currently no vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being
exposed to this virus. However, everyday preventive actions can help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases:
Wash your hands often
Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.
Stay home when you are sick.
Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
For more information : htps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/prevention-treatment.html
How it spreads : The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person. It may be possible that a person can get
COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their
eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. [Read more.] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html )
Symptoms : For confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, reported illnesses have ranged from mild symptoms to
severe illness and death. Symptoms can include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures – but the
"low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals
shop there and they think it's being hyped by media.
I agree it is being hyped by the media to the point of being fear mongering. At the same time it is being ignored by the administration to such an extent that really little almost nothing is being done. At some point the two together will create an even bigger problem.
It is like the old adage: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Each over/under reach in considering the reality of the situation has its own problem, which multiply when combined. Every morning when I wake up I say a little atheistic prayer to myself before I get out of bed: "Another day and for better or
worse...".
Well, two reported here in Florida tonight. One in my county, one in the county next door. And more of the "we already knew, but told you late". One person checked into the hospital on Wednesday. We hear it Monday night.
Both were ignored far a long time it seems, and 84 in particular are being watched (roommates, friends, hospital workers not alerted
for several days, the usual). But no one knows every place they had been since becoming infected.
Oh, and they have tested a handful of people. No worry?
I can't see anyway that this level of incompetency is an accident. Spring break is just starting usually a 100's of thousand tourist
bonanza.
So the question is do they want to kill us, or just keep us in fear?
I think the later. But the end result is a crap shoot. So once again, it is a gamble with our lives.
The business of America is business. Sometimes that can go too far and this is one of those times. Making money from the loss,
distress, harm and suffering of others is perverse beyond belief.
This is simply pretty dirty and pretty effective propaganda trick. And it make intelligence agencies the third political party
participating in the USA elections. With the right of veto.
Based on the tone of Tuesday's Democratic debate, you would think the Kremlin has already
determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Former Vice President Joe Biden said
Russians are "engaged now, as I speak, in interfering in our election." Billionaire Tom Steyer
said there is "an attack by a hostile foreign power on our democracy right now." Former New
York Mayor Mike Bloomberg charged that
Russia was backing Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt., to ensure a Trump victory in November.
But the Russian interference narrative has become entrenched. When intelligence community
election expert Shelby Pierson speculated to the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door
meeting that Russia was trying to help President Trump get reelected, it quickly leaked, became
a front-page story in The New York Times and precipitated the usual outrage. It took a few days
for the less dramatic truth to catch up -- that there was
no evidence for the "misleading" supposition that the Kremlin is pro-Trump; at best Russia
may have a "preference" for a "deal-maker."
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
The article is mostly junk. But it contains some important insights into the rise of Trympism (aka "national neoliberalism") --
nationalist oligarchy. Including the following " the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not
actually pursuing policies that are economically populist."
The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy should
change. The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy
should change.
Notable quotes:
"... Fascism: A Warning ..."
"... Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America ..."
"... the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist. ..."
"... The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy ..."
"... Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority to overthrow them. ..."
"... Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out through ordinary political means. ..."
"... Classical Greek Oligarchy ..."
"... Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different -- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." ..."
"... We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. ..."
"... The view that money is speech under the First Amendment has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy," as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship. ..."
"... The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars ..."
"... The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic ..."
Ever since the 2016 election, foreign policy commentators and practitioners have been engaged in a series of soul-searching exercises
to understand the great transformations taking place in the world -- and to articulate a framework appropriate to the challenges
of our time. Some have looked backwards, arguing that the liberal international order is collapsing, while others question whether
it ever existed. Another group seems to hope the current messiness is simply a blip and that foreign policy will return to normalcy
after it passes. Perhaps the most prominent group has identified today's great threat as the rise of authoritarianism, autocracy,
and illiberal democracy. They fear that constitutional democracy is receding as norms are broken and institutions are under siege.
Unfortunately, this approach misunderstands the nature of the current crisis. The challenge we face today is not one of authoritarianism,
as so many seem inclined to believe, but of nationalist oligarchy. This form of government feeds populism to the people, delivers
special privileges to the rich and well-connected, and rigs politics to sustain its regime.
... ... ..
Authoritarianism or What?
Across the political spectrum, commentators and scholars have identified -- and warned of -- the global rise of autocracies and
authoritarian governments. They cite Russia, Hungary, the Philippines, and Turkey, among others. Distinguished commentators are increasingly
worried. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently published a book called Fascism: A Warning . Cass Sunstein
gathered a variety of scholars for a collection titled, Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America .
The authoritarian lens is familiar from the heroic narrative of democracy defeating autocracies in the twentieth century. But
as a framework for understanding today's central geopolitical challenges, it is far too narrow. This is mainly because those who
are worried about the rise of authoritarianism and the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics. Their emphasis
is almost exclusively political and constitutional -- free speech, voting rights, equal treatment for minorities, independent courts,
and the like. But politics and economics cannot be dissociated from each other, and neither are autonomous from social and cultural
factors. Statesmen and philosophers used to call this "political economy." Political economy looks at economic and political relationships
in concert, and it is attentive to how power is exercised. If authoritarianism is the future, there must be a story of its political
economy -- how it uses politics and economics to gain and hold power. Yet the rise-of-authoritarianism theorists have less to say
about these dynamics.
To be sure, many commentators have discussed populist movements throughout Europe and America, and there has been no shortage
of debate on the extent to which a generation of widening economic inequality has been a contributing factor in their rise. But whatever
the causes of popular discontent, the policy preferences of the people, and the bloviating rhetoric of leaders, the governments
that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist.
The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of
them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek
to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy , Jeffrey Winters calls it "wealth
defense." Elites engage in "property defense," protecting what they already have, and "income defense," preserving and extending
their ability to hoard more. Importantly, oligarchy as a governing strategy accounts for both politics and economics. Oligarchs use
economic power to gain and hold political power and, in turn, use politics to expand their economic power.
Those who worry about the rise of authoritarianism and fear the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics.
The trouble for oligarchs is that their regime involves rule by a small number of wealthy elites. In even a nominally
democratic society, and most countries around the world today are at least that, it should be possible for the much larger majority
to overthrow the oligarchy with either the ballot or the bullet. So how can oligarchy persist? This is where both nationalism and
authoritarianism come into play. Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics
to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority
to overthrow them.
The divide-and-conquer strategy is an old one, and it works through a combination of coercion and co-optation. Nationalism --
whether statist, ethnic, religious, or racial -- serves both functions. It aligns a portion of ordinary people with the ruling oligarchy,
mobilizing them to support the regime and sacrifice for it. At the same time, it divides society, ensuring that the nationalism-inspired
will not join forces with everyone else to overthrow the oligarchs. We thus see fearmongering about minorities and immigrants, and
claims that the country belongs only to its "true" people, whom the leaders represent. Activating these emotional, cultural, and
political identities makes it harder for citizens in the country to unite across these divides and challenge the regime.
Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political
marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The
common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out
through ordinary political means. Tactics like these are not new. They have existed, as Matthew Simonton shows in his book
Classical Greek Oligarchy , since at least the time of Pericles and Plato. The consequence, then as now, is that nationalist
oligarchies can continue to deliver economic policies to benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
It is worth noting that even the generation that waged war against fascism in Europe understood that the challenge to democracy
in their time was not just political, but economic and social as well. They believed that the rise of Nazism was tied to the concentration
of economic power in Germany, and that cartels and monopolies not only cooperated with and served the Nazi state, but helped its
rise and later sustained it. As New York Congressman Emanuel Celler, one of the authors of the Anti-Merger Act of 1950, said, quoting
a report filed by Secretary of War Kenneth Royall, "Germany under the Nazi set-up built up a great series of industrial monopolies
in steel, rubber, coal and other materials. The monopolies soon got control of Germany, brought Hitler to power, and forced virtually
the whole world into war." After World War II, Marshall Plan experts not only rebuilt Europe but also exported aggressive American
antitrust and competition laws to the continent because they believed political democracy was impossible without economic democracy.
Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different
-- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional
norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy
will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as
Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. Electoral losers in places
like North Carolina seek to entrench their power rather than accept defeat. The view that money is speech under the First Amendment
has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy,"
as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase
their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded
enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship.
Addressing our domestic economic and social crises is critical to defending democracy, and a grand strategy for America's future
must incorporate both domestic and foreign policy. But while many have recognized that reviving America's middle class and re-stitching
our social fabric are essential to saving democracy, less attention has been paid to how American foreign policy should be reformed
in order to defend democracy from the threat of nationalist oligarchy.
The Varieties of Nationalist Oligarchy
Just as there are many variations on liberal democracy -- the Swedish model, the French model, the American model -- there
are many varieties of nationalist oligarchy. The story is different in every country, but the elements of nationalist oligarchy
are trending all over the world.
... ... ...
... the European Union funds Hungary's oligarchy, as Orbán draws on EU money to fund about 60 percent of the state projects
that support "the new Fidesz-linked business elite." Nor do Orbán and his allies do much to hide the country's crony capitalist
model. András Lánczi, president of a Fidesz-affiliated think tank, has boldly stated that "if something is done in the national
interest, then it is not corruption." "The new capitalist ruling class," one Hungarian banker comments, "make their money from
the government."
The commentator Jan-Werner Müller captures Orbán's Hungary this way: "Power is secured through wide-ranging control of the
judiciary and the media; behind much talk of protecting hard-pressed families from multinational corporations, there is crony
capitalism, in which one has to be on the right side politically to get ahead economically."
Crony capitalism, coupled with resurgent nationalism and central government control, is also an issue in China. While some
commentators have emphasized "state capitalism" -- when government has a significant ownership stake in companies -- this phenomenon
is not to be confused with crony capitalism. Some countries with state capitalism, like Norway, are widely seen as extremely non-corrupt
and, indeed, are often held up as models of democracy. State capitalism itself is thus not necessarily a problem. Crony capitalism,
in contrast, is an "instrumental union between capitalists and politicians designed to allow the former to acquire wealth, legally
or otherwise, and the latter to seek and retain power." This is the key difference between state capitalism and oligarchy.
... ... ...
Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor of law
and Chancellor's faculty fellow at Vanderbilt Law School, and the author of The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the
Age of Small Wars and The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic
.
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to
see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us
by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man.
It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives
of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an
essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was
meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that
is exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes
the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with
what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official
government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what
caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina.
That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The
world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to
war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled
"On Churchill's Sinews
of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of
Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was
exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933,
against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy
corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau
that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared
over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the
internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National
Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as
the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC)
Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations
and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so
by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces
were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the
foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the
President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "
– Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility
of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters
and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA
secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's
March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000
man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the
military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been
subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office,
and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist
history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a
decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for
the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because,
had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were
against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility
as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst
a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers
from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against
an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without
the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge
Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In
addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out
of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:
" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited
the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the
official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the
responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell
Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was
due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because
of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum
#55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty
states,
" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert
operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy
Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more
missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret
deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms
of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000
military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of
U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S.
TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but,
more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths
it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans
at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently
researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of
Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War
and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total
of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force
on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold
War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia
and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed
by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran
needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency
against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect
CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign
and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie
Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly
to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would
not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President
Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely
something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad
to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a
compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President
alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April
2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC
at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military
can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's
assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it
no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown
conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that
though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was
the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long
pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country.
And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position
to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .
". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their
paychecks and finance the black ops.
Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team
established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.
Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable
ventures.
If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the
nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like
drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans
jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.
Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.
One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from
the region.
It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of
1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.
Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y
our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and
some 9th circle witches of course...
"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
"... I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this Party" ..."
I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern
in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this
Party"
"... Yet the mass media, freakishly, has had absolutely nothing to say about this extremely newsworthy story. ..."
"... The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world; questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in that conspiracy of silence? ..."
"... This is the FOURTH leak showing how the OPCW fabricated a report on a supposed Syrian 'chemical' attack," tweeted journalist Ben Norton. "And mainstream Western corporate media outlets are still silent, showing how authoritarian these 'democracies' are and how tightly they control info." "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," tweeted journalist Aaron Maté. ..."
This is getting really, really, really weird. WikiLeaks has WikiLeaks has
published yet another set of leaked
internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adding even more material to
the mountain of evidence that we've been lied to about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria last year which resulted
in airstrikes upon that nation from the US, UK and France.
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
Russia has closed major border crossings with China across the Far East due to the rapid spread of coronavirus. That constitutes
a significant blow to a trading relationship that had only just begun to fully blossom. The closures come just as new auto and rail
bridges spanning the Amur River are finally
reaching
completion.
The primary line of debate among Russia-China relations analysts is whether the "rapprochement" is robust and tending toward even
a genuine alliance or whether it is weak and has little to show for decades of cooperation other than a few rhetorical flourishes.
After all, the skeptics note, if this bilateral relationship is so robust, then why did it take so long to get those bridges built?
The China-Russia trading relationship does indeed remain underdeveloped and will evidently face additional headwinds in the near
future (along with all of China's trading relationships, so it seems). But
the importance of security ties
can hardly be disputed, especially if one takes the long view. Could China have fought the United States to a stalemate in the Korean
War without Soviet military assistance? Not a chance. More recently, Russia's sale of high-tech air and naval weaponry during the
1990s and 2000s created a solid foundation for today's muscle-bound dragon with both claws (DF-26) and sharp fangs (e.g. YJ-18).
But will it go further?
A tantalizing hint was offered by Russian president Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Conference in early October 2019. During his
remarks, he dropped the following bombshell: "I probably won't open a big secret. It'll become clear anyhow. We are now helping our
Chinese partners to create a missile attack warning system. This is a very serious thing, which will increase the defense capability
of the People's Republic of China in a fundamental way. Because now only the USA and Russia have such a system [Большой тайны, наверно,
не открою. Все равно это станет ясно. Мы сейчас помогаем нашим китайским партнерам создать систему СПРН – систему предупреждения
о ракетном нападении. Это очень серьезная вещь, которая капитальным, кардинальным образом повысит обороноспособность Китайской Народной
Республики. Потому что сейчас такую систему имеют только США и Россия]." This seemingly major step forward in Russia-China military
cooperation demands greater scrutiny. It also provides an interesting opportunity to gauge opinion among Russian strategists regarding
the long-term viability of a close military partnership with the Middle Kingdom.
One impressively comprehensive Russian appraisal begins
by stating that "Russia had to look for various options for answering Washington's actions" to withdraw from the INF Treaty. The
same article notes somewhat ominously that the United States is preparing in case of "accidental nuclear war with Russia." Employing
the Russian acronym "SPRN" literally "warning systems against rocket attack [системы предупреждения о ракетном нападении]" for early
warning system, this assessment also makes the important point that Russia's SPRN has only recently completed a long process of upgrades
meant to fill "gaps [разрывы]" caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, when key facilities for early warning were located in
non-Russian parts of the USSR.
The article quotes one Moscow defense expert, Igor Korotchenko [Игор Коротченко], as offering the following assessment: "This
is really a huge contribution of Russia to strategic stability, since China receives a powerful tool in order not to become a victim
of the first disarming blow from the United States." Another Russian expert, Konstantin Sivkov [Константин Сивков], maintained that
this move would enhance "global stability" but also articulated some concern with respect to Russia's long-term interests. "When
China has at its disposal all the technologies that Russia has at its disposal, or creates similar ones, it will cease to need Russia
as a defender," Sivkov said. "And this could adversely affect Russian-Chinese relations." Korotchenko, however, is more bullish on
the long-term prospects for the defense relationship with Beijing. He underlined the commercial prospects for Russian companies,
and added that the early warning initiative will "contribute to the further rapprochement of Russia and China, building a common
security policy [поспособствует дальнейшему сближению России и Китая, выстраиванию общей политики в области безопасности]."
That's an interesting disagreement among Russian security specialists, for sure, but another rather significant observation regarding
these developments was offered in this same article by the former deputy commander of Russia's air defense command, Alexander Luzan
[Александр Лузан]. He contends that Russia will benefit from the enhanced cooperation with Beijing on an early warning. Luzan explains
that the ground components of Russia's SPRN are comprised of []long range "Voronezh" [Воронеж] radars that can see out four thousand
to six thousand kilometers to detect ICBM launches. Short-range "Sunflower [Подсолнухи]" radars are more suitable for warning of
short-range launches, but also offer ship-detection capabilities. Directly reflecting on operational advantages for the Russian military,
Luzan observes: "Vladivostok and Primorye are protected here, but there is nothing 'in depth.' We once tried to deploy our facilities
in Mongolia, but it didn't work out very well. Therefore, if the Chinese close this 'tongue,' it will be very important for Russia
[Владивосток и Приморье у нас защищены, а 'в глубину' там ничего нет. Мы когда-то в Монголии пытались разместить свои комплексы,
но не очень получилось. Потому если китайцы этот 'язычок' закроют, то для России это будет очень важно]." Again citing this Russian
general, the article states that "a unified information space is created and data is exchanged with Chinese radars, [and therefore]
'the security of our country from the east will be even better.'"
Such interpretations are generally in accord with the analysis
of Vladimir Petrovsky [Владимир Петровский,], a senior fellow and military specialist at Moscow's Institute of the Far East of the
Russian Academy of Sciences. This analyst writes that many believe that Putin's announcement of this strategic cooperation initiative
at Valdai signals that "the military alliance between Russia and China . . . has finally become real." Petrovsky also notes that
other specialists have begun to speculate on the meaning of a "retaliatory strike" under such circumstances, wherein the early warning
is relayed by a third country. He quotes the Russian president (speaking at Valdai) further on the matter of motives for new missile
deployments in the Asia-Pacific region: "we suddenly heard from the American military that the first step in this direction would
be taken just in Asia. But that step also impacts on us, because we need to understand: where in Asia, will Russian territory be
endangered or not? By the way, it's immediately clear what was the root cause of the exit: not Russia and not mythical violations
of the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty by us. If they are going to put [U.S. missiles] in Asia, then Asia is the primary
reason for withdrawing from this Treaty [вдруг услышали от американских военных, что первый шаг в этом направлении будет сделан как
раз в Азии. Но он и нас затрагивает, потому что надо понять: где в Азии, будет доставать это российскую территорию или нет? Кстати
говоря, сразу понятно, что было первопричиной выхода: не Россия и не мифические нарушения нами Договора. Если они собираются ставить
в Азии, то Азия и является первопричиной выхода из этого Договора]." In other words, Putin's announcement of this initiative to accelerate
military cooperation with China is intended, in part, as a response to the United States' move to exit the INF accord.
Strongly hinting that Beijing might well gain access to Russian early-warning radars based in the Arctic, Petrovsky observes,
"Taking into account geography, it is quite possible to develop protocols for the exchange of data between national SPRN." He further
contends that this early warning cooperation will be "mutually beneficial and not without compensation [эта помощь -- взаимовыгодная
и небезвозмездная]." This military expert explains that China still can learn from Russian radar proficiency, but also implies that
the Russian side may gain some advantages from China's evident prowess in microelectronics, for example. Moreover, he suggests, "a
possible Chinese satellite constellation could be a good addition to Russian orbital facilities." Still, Petrovsky concludes that
Russia and China "are not creating a military-political alliance. It is rather a matter of coordinating the military policies." Playing
down the significance of this new initiative, this specialist also notes that Russia and China have been holding annual ballistic
missile defense command and staff exercises for about a decade already.
Darn Russians made people pay $1750 to $3200 to attend the debates last night and clap for
Bloomberg. The Russians also aired a long Bloomberg informercial and an anti-Medicare for All
commercial during the ad breaks - to divide us. Putin will stop at nothing.
Yes, neo-McCarthyism is a sign of the collapse of neoliberal ideology and the crisis within
the neoliberal ruling elite, which is trying to patch the cracks int he neoliberal facade of the
US society and require the control over the population (which rejected neoliberalism at voting
booth in 2016) with Russophobia
There's always a bit of judgment and vengeance inherent to the factional shenanigans of
Australia's Liberal party, but its refreshed vocabulary warrants inclusion as the fifth sign.
Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, has been
recorded in a dazzling rant declaring war on a "socialist" incursion into a party whose
leader is a former merchant banker who pledged to rule for "freedom, the individual and the
market" the very day he was anointed.
The reds may not
be under the beds quite yet, but if Sukkar's convinced some commie pinkos are already
gatecrashing cocktail events with the blue-tie set, they're certainly on his mind.
"... He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president. ..."
On the big issue though I cant help seeing Pontious Pompeo as hurling himself about the globe
tilting at windmills. He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure,
but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel
stupid president.
uncle tungsten | Feb 11 2020 22:52 utc | 30
Isn't it a good method? This way, the vassals can comply with a smile.
If you fire 70% of the admirals and generals
you will increase the military capabilities of the US military by 40%.
They are incompetent hacks who are better on their knees in front of the MIC and Congress
then they are on any battlefield.
At least during WWII we had less of them and no one was hesitant to fire at least some of
them for incompetence. I say sum of them because many of the war hero generals needed to be
removed including Bradly, Eisenhower, Halsey, Nimitz, and even MacArthur.
But today, no one gets fired for anything.
Literally they have a special class of MBA's being generals and and strategic thinkers and
it has turned out to be a disaster for the military and the US.
An example by way of analogy is look at Boeing. How much better would Boeing be if they
fired all the MBA's and replaced them with engineers who loved air planes. Boeing would make a
lot less profit but its planes would be the best in the world.
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
"... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
"... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
"... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
"... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
"... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
"... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
"... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
"... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was
the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no
politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most
Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career
politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs
.
Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is
steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only
politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple
wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of
officially certified grievance groups control the public space.
It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.
The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir
Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of
favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find
the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be
into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style
democracy to the un-enlightened.
One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think
that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020
they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic
behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will
have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure
won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.
Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence
Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments"
speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were
inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The
Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin
labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a
great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that
the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a
closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing
tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."
Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration
of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was
undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's
"interference" in 2016, and to the
ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and
Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.
Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020
election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided
at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for
going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was
essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there,
and we don't have to fight Russia here."
Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son
sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if
someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used
to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they
deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The
Nation added that "For all the talk about
Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering
w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of
Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."
Over
at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering,
sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but
sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from
Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."
The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck
Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in
the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe
Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in
2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine
first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe
Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian
oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a
Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
On Wednesday,
Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become
the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century
will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the
legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The
Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not
stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will
do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and
"Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much
more credible.
The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with
their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the
neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every
failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and
don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading
the tea leaves and
is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a
grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin
is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by
dint of military force."
Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering
nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of
that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is
essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point
of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee.
If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to
insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.
So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the
removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with
the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.
Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and
people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans,
and cutting off my kids genitalia.
It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump,
or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal,
mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump
wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election,
and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they
did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com
Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant
portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the
blame they deserve themselves.
lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep
ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not
worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will
go to war there is no way to let this continue.
The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like
"America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because
of it.
We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them
understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back
and further entrench that brainwashing.
It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will
make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only
Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.
The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country
Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we
expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with
all the Elitist Rights.
The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that
anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor
in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them
now.
This story claims that it had five (5!) people criminally leaking alleged content from a
classified briefing. And why not, since no one gets prosecuted for these crimes. Still, we
have a serious problem with our supposedly professional "intelligence" and "oversight"
communities. https://t.co/zuAdwXpU2L
Until heads roll and hoaxers are sent to prison, the seditious Russian collusion hoaxers
will never stop. They will lie and leak and fabricate evidence, whatever it takes, to
prevent the American people from taking charge of their own government. https://t.co/wijJ07QKOO
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
"... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
"... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
"... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
"... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
"... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
"... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
"... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
"... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
"... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
"... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen
Moore told an
audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class
party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted
instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the
shock was palpable" in the room.
The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and
limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the
benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of
its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more
populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.
To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings
in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against
what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of
Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite ,
leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of
guru for a " smarter
Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.
Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too
personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help
solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and
democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what
Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.
The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of
coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a
neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of
"Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."
To Lind, the case is much more
straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and
containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free
trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage
levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and
Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on
Social Security) and right on immigration.
The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson,
and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or
defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy,
metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as
irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.
What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's
narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class
war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the
one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced
the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized
workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head
in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the
consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries
from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at
the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and
organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the
working class set sector-wide wages.
This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was
made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and
rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well
as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from
the ground up.
But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set
in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the
newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is
outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits
can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an
unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic
counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist
societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent
populist backlash on itself.
Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and
reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class
peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational
treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape
the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have
to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy
of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted
industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.
Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table?
"The answer is fear," Lind suggests -- fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke,
authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first
acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest
its underlings revolt.
Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based
organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He's coy, however, about who would
reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party
bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more
this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined
zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere ,
American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms;
they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the
Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are
capitalistically run enterprises.
Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces
of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.
The key to Lind's fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight -- in the book's title. Lind does
not speak of "class struggle ," the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized
proletariat strove for global power; no, "class war " smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian
war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.
In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital
Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to
excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free
society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after
World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the
ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist
(albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces
in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The
midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he
end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism."
Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and
technocratic neoliberalism isn't as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same "liberal order"
of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent
impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President
Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been
nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability
of the vital center from polar extremes.
A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to
persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why
some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies -- and why
nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other
again in war.
Reagan was a free-trader and a union buster. Lind's people jumped the Democratic ship
to vote for Reagan in (lemming-like) droves. As Republicans consolidated power over labor
with cheap goods from China and the meth of deficit spending Democrats struggled with
being necklaced as the party of civil rights.
The idea that people who are well-informed ought not to govern is a sad and sick cover
story that the culpable are forced to chant in their caves until their days are done, the
reckoning being too great.
The Trump administration's
legal justification for the Soleimani assassination is as preposterous as you would expect it to be:
The White House delivered its legal justification for the January airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, arguing
that President Donald Trump was authorized to take the action under the Constitution and 2002 legislation authorizing the Iraq
war.
The administration is no longer pretending that the assassination had anything to do with stopping an "imminent" attack. They
no longer claim that this is why the assassination was ordered. That by itself is a remarkable admission of the illegality of the
strike. If there was no "imminent" attack, the U.S. was taking aggressive action against a high-ranking official from another country.
There is no plausible case to be made that this was an act of self-defense. Not only did the president lack the authority to do this
on his own, but it would have been illegal under international law even if he had received approval from Congress before doing it.
The administration spent weeks hiding behind the "imminent" attack lie because without it there was no justification for what they
did.
Abandoning the "imminent" attack claim also means that the administration is trying to lower the bar for carrying out future strikes
against Iran and its proxies. Ryan Goodman points this out in his
analysis of the administration's statements:
The absence of an imminent threat is relevant not only to the legal and policy basis for the strike on Jan. 2. It is also relevant
for potential future military action. The administration's position appears to boil down to an assertion that it can use military
force against Iran without going to Congress even if responding to a threat from Iran that is not urgent or otherwise imminent.
In short, Trump and his officials want to make it easier for them to commit acts of war against both Iran and Iraqi militias.
Trying to distort the 2002 Iraq war AUMF to cover the assassination of an Iranian official just because he happened to be in Iraq
at the time is ridiculous. Congress passed the disgraceful 2002 AUMF to give George W. Bush approval to attack and overthrow the
Iraqi government. That did not and does not give later presidents carte blanche to use force in Iraq in perpetuity whenever they
feel like it. The fact that they are resorting to such an obviously absurd argument shows that they know they don't have a leg to
stand on. The Soleimani strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and there is not really any question about it. The administration's
own justification condemns them.
The president's lawlessness in matters of war underscores why it is necessary for Congress to reassert its proper constitutional
role. The Senate
passed S.J.Res. 68, the Tim Kaine-sponsored war powers resolution, by a vote of 55-45 to make clear that the president does not
have authorization for any further military action against Iran:
In a bipartisan rebuke of President Trump on Thursday, a Senate majority voted 55 to 45 to block the president from taking
further military action against Iran -- unless first authorized by Congress. Eight GOP senators joined every Democrat to protest
the president's decision to kill a top Iranian commander without complying with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The president has already said that he will veto the resolution, just as he vetoed the antiwar Yemen resolution last year. He
is proving once again beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no respect for the Constitution or Congress' role in matters of war.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in this and why nobody is taking that route, given that the US has signed the UN Charter,
to get a judicial review and sanction of president's actions?
Actually any supremacist ideology produces something like an apartheid regime for other
nationalities.
The current situation looks like a dead end with little chances of reconciliation, especially
after recent killing of protesters by Israel army/snipers. But in general, it is iether a two
state solution of equal rights for Palestinians and Jews in the same state. The elements of
theocratic state should be eliminated and right wing parties outlawed as neofascist parties which
threatens democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies -- allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the Jordan Valley to Israel. ..."
The threat of a new war with Iran that might have replicated what has been the worst
disaster in the history of America's international misadventures -- George W. Bush's invasion
of Iraq based on fabricated lies -- sucked the air out of all other international diplomatic
activity, not least of what used to be called the Middle East peace process.
Yet the failure of the peace process has not been the consequence of recent mindless and
destructive actions by Donald Trump and of the clownish shenanigans of his son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, who was charged with helping Israeli hardliners in nailing down permanently the
Palestinian occupation. For all the damage they caused (mainly to Palestinians), prospects for
a two-state solution actually ended during President Barack Obama's administration, despite
Secretary of State John Kerry's energetic efforts to renew the stalled negotiations. They were
not resumed because Obama, like his predecessors, failed to take the tough measures that were
necessary to overcome Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's determination to prevent the
emergence of a Palestinian state, notwithstanding his pledge in his Bar-Ilan speech of 2009 to
implement the agreements of the Oslo accords.
Yes, Obama and Kerry did warn that Israel's continued occupation might lead to an Israeli
apartheid regime. But knowing how deeply the accusation of an incipient Israeli apartheid could
anger right-wingers in Israel and in the U.S., they repeatedly followed that warning with the
assurance that "America will always have Israel's back." It was the sequence of this two-part
statement that convinced Netanyahu that AIPAC had succeeded in getting American presidents to
protect Israel's impunity. Had Obama and Kerry reversed that sequence, first noting that
the U.S. had always had Israel's back, and then warning that Israel is now on the verge
of trading its democracy for apartheid, the warning might have had quite different implications
for Israel's government.
The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country
on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and
therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies --
allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White
party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most
basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a
unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not
because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject
were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the
Jordan Valley to Israel.
For the Palestinians, territory is the most critical of the final status issues. The current
internationally recognized borders that separate Israel and the Occupied Territories reduced
the territory originally assigned to Palestinians in the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 from
roughly half of Palestine to 22 percent. Israel, which was assigned originally roughly the
other half of Palestine, now has 78 percent, not including Palestinian territory Israel has
confiscated for its illegal settlements.
No present or prospective Palestinian leadership will accept any further reduction of
territory from their promised state. Given the territory they already lost in 1947, and again
in 1949, and given Israel's refusal to accept the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, is
it really reasonable to expect Palestinians to give up any further territory? Where else other
than the West Bank could Palestine refugees return to?
The one-state solution that is preferred by many Israelis is essentially a continuation of
the present de facto apartheid. It is not the one-state alternative any Palestinian would
accept. Repeated polling has shown that a majority of Jewish Israelis are unprepared to grant
equal rights to Palestinians in a one-state arrangement. This opposition is unsurprising, for
the inclusion in Israel's body politic of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians would mean the end of
Israel as a Jewish state, for Israel's non-Jewish citizens would then outnumber its Jewish
ones, and may already do so. Of course, Israel could contrive a non-voting status for the West
Bank's Palestinians, something many Jewish Israelis and political parties actually advocate,
but that would not deceive anyone. It would mean the formal end of Israel's democracy.
The foregoing notwithstanding, I have long maintained that if Israel were compelled to
choose between one state that grants full equality to Palestinians now under occupation and two
states that conform substantially to existing agreements and international law, and no other
options were available to it, the majority of Israelis would opt for two states. Why? Because
as noted above, the overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose any arrangement that might produce
a Palestinian majority with the same rights Israeli Jewish citizens enjoy. Of course, Israel
has never been compelled to make such a choice, nor will they be compelled to do so by the
international community.
However, they could be compelled to do so by the Palestinians, but only if Palestinians were
finally to expel their current leadership and choose a more honest and courageous one. That new
leadership would have to shut down the Palestinian Authority, which its present leaders allowed
Israel to portray as an arrangement that places Palestinians on the path to statehood, of
course in some undefined future. Israel has deliberately perpetuated that myth to conceal its
real intention to keep the current occupation unchanged. The new Palestinian leadership would
have to declare that since Israel has denied them their own state and established a one-state
reality, Palestinians will no longer deny that reality. Consequently, the national struggle
will now be for full citizenship in the one state that Israel has forced them into. I have
argued for the past two decades that the one-state option is far more likely to open a path to
a two-state solution, however counter intuitive that may seem to be. Palestinians rejected it
categorically from the outset, but
younger Palestinians have come around to accepting it -- even preferring it to the two-state
model.
Unlike the struggle for a two-state solution, a goal that has so easily been manipulated by
Israel to mean whatever serves their real goal of preventing such an outcome -- and also so
easily allowed international actors to pretend they have not given up their efforts to achieve
that outcome, an anti-apartheid struggle does not lend itself to such deceptions. South Africa
has taught the world too well what apartheid looks like, as well as how the international
community could deal with it. Of course, South Africa has also shown how long and bloody a
struggle against apartheid can be, and the terrible price paid by the victims of such a regime.
But Palestinians already live in such a regime, and have for long been paying a terrible price
for their subjugation.
Yet deeper and more troubling questions are raised by the choices that now face Israel,
including whether the original idea of the Zionist movement of a state that is both Jewish and
democratic is not deeply oxymoronic, a question that not only Israelis but Jews outside of
Israel must address. That question is underscored by the challenges to India's democracy posed
by its prime minister's decision to turn his country into a Hindu nation. It is a question that
did not escape some of the founders of the Zionist movement, who argued that Zionism should
define the state as Jewish only in its ethnic and secular cultural dimensions. But that this is
not how Jewish identity is treated in Israel is undeniable.
Imagine if Israel's laws defining national identity and citizenship, as recently
reformulated by Israel's Knesset, were adopted by the U.S. Congress or by other Western
democratic countries, and if Christianity in its "cultural dimensions" were declared to be
their national identity, with citizenship also granted by conversion to the dominant religion,
as is now the case in Israel, where arrangements for Jewish religious conversions are part of
the Prime Minister's office.
Is this not what America's founders, and the waves of immigrants, including European Jews,
sought to escape from? And how would Jews react today to legislation in the U.S. Congress that
would explicitly seek to maintain the majority status of Christians in the U.S.? Are Jews to
take pride in a Jewish state that adopts citizenship requirements that mirror those advocated
by white Christian supremacists? These supremacists have already proclaimed jubilantly that
Israel's policies vindicate the ones they have long been advocating.
It is true, of course, that for some Jews, aware of the history of anti-Semitism that has
spanned the ages, and especially the Holocaust, Zionism's contradictions with democratic
principles are an unpleasant but inescapable dilemma they can live with. As a survivor of the
Holocaust, I can understand that. But I also understand that the likely consequences of these
contradictions are not benign, and can yield their own terrible outcomes, particularly when
they lead to the dalliances by the prime minister of a Jewish state with right-wing racist and
xenophobic heads of state and of political parties that have fascist and anti-Semitic
parentage.
Legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress and by Trump, and recently celebrated by his
son-in-law Kushner in a New York Times op-ed, proposing that criticism of
Zionism be outlawed as antisemitism , would be laughable, were it not so clearly -- and
outrageously -- intended to deny freedom of speech on this subject. Yet laughable it is, for
its first target would have to be Jews -- not liberal left-wingers but the most Orthodox Jews,
known as Haredim, in Israel and in America.
At the very inception of the Zionist movement 150 years ago, not only the Haredim but the
overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jewry everywhere was opposed to Zionism, which it considered
to be a Jewish heresy, not only because the Zionists were mostly secularists, but because of an
oath taken by Jewish leaders after the destruction of the Second Temple following their exile
from Palestine, that Jews would not reestablish a Jewish kingdom except following the messianic
era. Zionism was also bitterly opposed by much of the world's Jewish Reform movement, many of
whose leaders insisted that Jewishness is a religion, not a political identity.
Much of Orthodox Jewry did not end its opposition to Zionism until after the war of 1967,
but many if not most Haredis continue to oppose Zionism as heresy. Most of its members refuse
to serve in Israel's military, to celebrate Israel's Independence Day, sing its national
anthem, and do not allow prayers in their synagogues for the wellbeing of Israel's political
leaders. Trump, Kushner, and the U.S. Congress would have to arrest them as anti-Semites.
I have no doubt that Trump's rage at the Jewish chairmen of the two Congressional committees
that led the procedures for his impeachment will sooner or later explode in anti-Semitic
expletives. The only reason it has not done so yet is because of Trump's fear of jeopardizing
Evangelical support and Sheldon Adelson's mega bucks. After all, Trump already told us that the
neo-Nazi rioters in Charlottesville declaiming "Jews will not replace us" included "very fine
people." Netanyahu never criticized Trump's statement, for he too does not want to jeopardize
certain relationships, namely the "very fine people" he has embraced -- leaders in Hungary,
Poland, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.
If Trump's son-in-law is searching for anti-Semites, he should have been told they are far
closer at hand than in America's schools, for they are ensconced in the White House. They are
also to be found in Jerusalem where they are being accorded honors by Netanyahu. The
anti-Semitic dog whistling contained in Trump's attacks on the two Jewish congressmen were not
misunderstood by his hardcore supporters -- who now include the entire leadership of the
Republican party -- who Trump needs to take him to victory in the coming presidential
elections, or to keep him in the White House were he to lose those elections.
If apartheid is coming (or has come) out of Zion, it should not shock that what may come out
of Washington is a repeat by Trump's Republican shock troops of what occurred in Berlin in
1933, when the Bundestag was taken over by the Nazi party and ended Germany's democracy.
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey
and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military
victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is
coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's
assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi
Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with
Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament.
He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him
and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in
false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the
situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in
2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary
session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had
learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent
Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and
then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together
with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being
recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:
Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused
to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated)
words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement.
When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my
premiership.
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us
rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this "third party".
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult
for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist
attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to
deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from
the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of
negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the
importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the
risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi
Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the
US operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the
rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard
against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman
sent a delegation to the United States.
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf
of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through
another war'.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to
do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that
Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to
mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a
regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike
evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many
issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior
government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey
and
Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the
country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from
Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's
regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi
royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy
agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing
out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar
about which
I have long written .
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution
(on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However,
this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US
dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve
currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from
playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can
easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its
treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable
arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order,
with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South
America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming
majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship
with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen
to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent
without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp
both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks
to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in
2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the
Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement,
Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for
everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian
Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030
vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any
appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and
destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate
the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a
desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving
multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the
world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and
dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid
squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and
unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East,
that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any
other currency than the US dollar.
Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other
way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by
targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While
Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the
importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision,
all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents,
winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's),
and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the
region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been
scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead
increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm
dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the
countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.
Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to
swallow for my US american brother and sisters.
But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to
survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it
already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people
need to wake up?
Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to
recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).
Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist
controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should
tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed,
the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of
non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would
target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and
the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China
agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist
to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who
kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically
threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."
.........
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia
for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers
Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in
absentia in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing
out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens
within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to
our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress
who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its
own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires
end with a bang. Be ready
NSC Russia expert freshly appointed Andrew Peek, who was walked out like Vindman,
with him only freshly appointed after Fiona Hill and the Tim Morrioson resigned.
There is a big problems with "experts" in NSC -- often they represent interests of the
particular agency, or a think tank, not that of the country.
Look at former NSC staffer Fiona Hill. She can be called "threat inflation"
specialist.
NSC tries to usurp the role of the State Department and overly militarize the USA
foreign policy, while having much lower class specialists. It is a kind of CIA backdoor
into defining the USA foreign policy.
I would advocate creating "shadow NSC" by the party who is in opposition, so that it
can somehow provide countervailing opinions. But with both parties being now war parties,
this is no that effective.
Cutting NSC staff to the bones, so that such second rate personalities like Fiona Hill
and Vindman are automatically excluded might also help a little bit.
One common explanation is that the NSC mission creep results from the NSC staff
growing too large and the easy solution is to limit the size of the staff. I am
sympathetic to that feeling because we don't want it to
be too large and we don't want it to be usurping things that the State Department or
the Agency should do.
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
Russia, China and Iran are already being blamed for using tech to undermine the 2020
election. Yet, the very technologies they are allegedly using were created by a web of
companies with deep ties to Israeli intelligence.
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath:
Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"
Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former
United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January
2017 until April 2018
Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."
Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career
Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the
former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the
Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
lizabeth Warren wrote an
article
outlining in general terms how she would bring America's current foreign wars to an end. Perhaps the most significant part of the
article is her commitment to respect Congress' constitutional role in matters of war:
We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary
role in deciding to engage militarily. The United States should not fight and cannot win wars without deep public support.
Successive administrations and Congresses have taken the easy way out by choosing military action without proper authorizations
or transparency with the American people. The failure to debate these military missions in public is one of the reasons
they have been allowed to continue without real prospect of success [bold mine-DL].
On my watch, that will end. I am committed to seeking congressional authorization if the use of force is required. Seeking
constrained authorizations with limited time frames will force the executive branch to be open with the American people and
Congress about our objectives, how the operation is progressing, how much it is costing, and whether it should continue.
Warren's commitment on this point is welcome, and it is what Americans should expect and demand from their presidential
candidates. It should be the bare minimum requirement for anyone seeking to be president, and any candidate who won't commit to
respecting the Constitution should never be allowed to have the powers of that office. The president is not permitted to launch
attacks and start wars alone, but Congress and the public have allowed several presidents to do just that without any consequences.
It is time to put a stop to illegal presidential wars, and it is also time to put a stop to open-ended authorizations of military
force. Warren's point about asking for "constrained authorizations with limited time frames" is important, and it is something that
we should insist on in any future debate over the use of force. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books and have been abused
and stretched beyond recognition to apply to groups that didn't exist when they were passed so that the U.S. can fight wars in
countries that don't threaten our security. Those need to be repealed as soon as possible to eliminate the opening that they have
provided the executive to make war at will.
Michael Brendan Dougherty is
unimpressed with Warren's rhetoric:
But what has Warren offered to do differently, or better? She's made no notable break with the class of experts who run our
failing foreign policy. Unlike Bernie Sanders, and like Trump or Obama, she hasn't hired a foreign-policy staff committed to a
different vision. And so her promise to turn war powers back to Congress should be considered as empty as Obama's promise to do
the same. Her promise to bring troops home would turn out to be as meaningless as a Trump tweet saying the same.
We shouldn't discount Warren's statements so easily. When a candidate makes specific commitments about ending U.S. wars during a
campaign, that is different from making vague statements about having a "humble" foreign policy. Bush ran on a conventional hawkish
foreign policy platform, and there were also no ongoing wars for him to campaign against, so we can't say that he ever ran as a
"dove." Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and ran on ending the U.S. military presence there, and before his first term was
finished almost all U.S. troops were out of Iraq. It is important to remember that he did not campaign against the war in
Afghanistan, and instead argued in support of it. His subsequent decision to commit many more troops there was a mistake, but it was
entirely consistent with what he campaigned on. In other words, he withdrew from the country he promised to withdraw from, and
escalated in the country where he said the U.S. should be fighting. Trump didn't actually campaign on ending any wars, but he did
talk about "bombing the hell" out of ISIS, and after he was elected he escalated the war on ISIS. His anti-Iranian obsession was out
in the open from the start if anyone cared to pay attention to it. In short, what candidates commit to doing during a campaign does
matter and it usually gives you a good idea of what a candidate will do once elected.
If Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates are committing to ending U.S. wars, we shouldn't assume that they won't
follow through on those commitments because previous presidents proved to be the hawks that they admitted to being all along.
Presidential candidates often tell us exactly what they mean to do, but we have to be paying attention to everything they say and
not just one catchphrase that they said a few times. If voters want a more peaceful foreign policy, they should vote for candidates
that actually campaign against ongoing wars instead of rewarding the ones that promise and then deliver escalation. But just voting
for the candidates that promise an end to wars is not enough if Americans want Congress to start doing its job by reining in the
executive. If we don't want presidents to run amok on war powers, there have to be political consequences for the ones that have
done that and there needs to be steady pressure on Congress to take back their role in matters of war. Voters should select
genuinely antiwar candidates, but then they also have to hold those candidates accountable once they're in office.
Trump doesn't have a thing to fear he's been a huge asset to the security state, whose
Russiagate theatrics provided mainstream media news with just enough bullshit to distract the
public, so that Trump could never be aggressively attacked from the Left. For the last three
years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia.
Meanwhile, this enabled Trump to successfully pass a slew of reactionary legislation and
fasttrack numerous lifetime appointments to the federal court without barely a whimper from
the phony Dems. In fact, the Democrats unanimously voted for Trump's military budget. The
same idiot they called unhinged was given the power to start WWIII.
No matter how much liberals complain–the wealthy are happy with the status quo and
the right-wing Evangelicals are as pleased as punch. However, there's quite a large number of
disaffected Trump voters looking at Tulsi, but could eventually come Bernie's way.
Especially, if Tulsi endorses Bernie. This discontented bunch includes the working-poor, the
indebted young, and all the folks who are not doing economically well under Trump's fabulous
stock market. It especially includes the military families who were promised an end to the
miserable foreign interventions. Bernie, has some appeal to these folks. His platform
certainly resonates with all those who can barely pay their health insurance
premiums, and whose salary is NOT nearly considered a living wage. But Bernie could win
hands-down and steal Trump's base, if he only had the courage to UNAPOLOGETICALLY speak out
against US imperialism and connect all the dots explaining how the security state plundered
the treasury for decades f–king over the working-class.
It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be
attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring
office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone,
we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along
with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now
occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.
Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and
ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the
Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General
Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this
targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the
assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US
officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance":
once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?
A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link
between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the
command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These
leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against
the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in
their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or
without Sardar Soleimani".
"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is
the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria,
Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number
of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs
domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these
fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training
and finance," said the source.
In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political
leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat
of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These
officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part
of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to
defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar
ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is
under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve
a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly
affect these forces and their plans.
In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official
request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and
were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall
of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the
Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and
fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its
allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to
transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.
The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand
against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the
Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the
decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare
experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq
throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.
Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah
officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish
Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to
defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its
control in northern Iraq.
The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to
Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and
political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader.
Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these
find it difficult to overcome their differences together.
The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when
meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance"
doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns
among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan
expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces'
departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but
part of it.
Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed
on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani
as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish
to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed
Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in
particular, to all allies where US forces are present."
Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was
aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the
"Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track.
The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi
factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never
expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to
express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.
Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a
road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and
support Palestine.
All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran
and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it
according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said
from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".
Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a
long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011).
Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are
seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have
violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US
administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.
The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen
within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime
Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their
presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to
leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.
Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude
a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one.
Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of
their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any
other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis
of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential
campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kevin Smith: "Higgins is currently frantically trying to prop up the Douma narrative against a mountain of evidence disproving
his conclusions. For those who’ve followed his story, it’s clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set up to take the fall
when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the mainstream.
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held together
by elastic, and is not for sale." ~Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
"... I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path. ..."
"... This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing. ..."
"... I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people can relate better to events today. ..."
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held
together by elastic, and is not for sale."
Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
Like many, I've been following the Douma scandal for some time and particularly since the
OPCW whistleblowers and leaked emails blew the lid off the official narrative that Assad used
chemical weapons there.
For the past few weeks he's been debating the topic with Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, Scott Lucas and various Middle East based journalists
who created and then pushed the false narrative.
In fact, it's not really a debate. Peter Hitchens is quite literally slaughtering these
narrative managers – his logic and clear thinking – and wit exposing the numerous
gaps in their story and their desperate deflections.
Hitchens position is not exactly the same as many of us here hold – that Douma was a
clear false flag. What he is saying is the evidence points to there being no chemical attack by
the Syrian government, the pretext used for the attack on Syria. He doesn't wish to speculate
on matters which aren't conclusively proven, for example precisely on what did actually
happen.
I respect that position in many ways and his refusal to comment on the dead civilians in the
Douma images makes sense from a journalist in the mainstream. I think by having a position
which is clear and unassailable enables him to easily brush off his online detractors and not
allow them to deflect to other issues.
While I don't agree with everything he says, Hitchens has a calm and rational argument for
all the issues he covers. This puts clear ground between him and his online opponents who often
resort to childish abuse.
My 80-year old mum admires him too. She describes him as 'frightfully posh'. Perhaps someone
who might have belonged in a previous age – but I'm glad we have him in this one.
Anyway, I think we can be sure that Hitchens will continue his important work within the
remit he's chosen and others will investigate the unanswered questions which arise from the
Douma incident.
Ultimately the question about the dead civilians in the images is simply too dreadful to
ignore.
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
And then, of course, the resulting air strikes nearly caused us to go to war with Russia,
with all that would entail.
While these investigations continue, I think it's timely to see where these events fit into
the way the general public think and perceive wrongdoing and to try to radically to change
this.
I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and
events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you
explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem
hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path.
This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset
that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way
be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of
concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so
ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing.
I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to
people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed
him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries
complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back
at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people
can relate better to events today.
So, here follows an analogy of a character who lived in the 17th century. His traits, his
crimes, the political climate and peoples misguided perceptions in response can be compared to
recent events and one particular individual causing havoc in the world today.
Of course I refer to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.
Eliot ( 'suck my balls' ) Higgins and
Titus Oates1. Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat
Higgins probably doesn't need much of an introduction here. It seems he has no specific
qualifications relevant to his role and a bit of a drop-out in terms of education.
Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no
knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo."
But this didn't prevent him blogging about world events and then setting himself up and his
site as investigator for several incidents most notably the shooting down of the MH17 passenger
plane over Ukraine and allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria. It's now known that
Bellingcat is funded by pro-war groups including the Atlantic Council
Higgins has been accused by chemical weapons experts, academics and independent journalists
on the ground of fabricating evidence to reach a predetermined outcome decided on by his
funders.
His rise to prominence was fast and apparently some media editors now refer their
journalists to Bellingcat fabrications rather than allowing them to do any journalism
themselves.
For those who've followed his story, it's clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set
up to take the fall when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the
mainstream.
2. Titus Oates and the Popish Plot
Oates was a foul-mouthed
charlatan , serial liar and master of deception who lived in the 17th century. His earlier
life included being expelled from school and he was labelled a 'dunce' by people who knew him.
He became a clergyman and later joined the Navy. His career was plagued by various sex scandals
and charges of perjury.
In the 1670s during the time of Charles II, religious tensions threatened to spill over into
civil war but the pragmatic King, by and large, kept a lid on it.
However, along with Dr Israel Tonge an anti-Catholic rector, Oates started writing
conspiracy theories and inventing plots and later began writing a manuscript alleging of a plan
to assassinate King Charles II and replace him with his openly Catholic brother.
When the fabrication started to gather momentum, the King had an audience with Oates and was
unconvinced and was said to have found discrepancies in his story.
However, the tense political and religious climate at that time was ideal for conspiracy
theories and scaremongering. The King's ministers took Oates at his word and over a dozen
Catholics were executed for treason. This story created panic and paranoia lasting several
years taking the nation to the brink of civil war.
Over time Oates lies were exposed and when the Catholic King James II came to the throne, he
tried Oates with perjury and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
After James II fled England during the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' King William and
Queen Mary pardoned Oates and gave him a pension.
For me, this whole episode has many obvious parallels with Higgins, the long-running Russia
and the anti-Semitism witch-hunts in the media and the false narratives over Iraq, Libya and
Syria. Like those in power today, Oates had a knack for getting away with it. And I guess we
can all relate this to Julian Assange – the victims or whistleblowers being punished and
the perpetrators getting off.
I had wondered why James II, often ruthless and unforgiving had not executed Oates. But
apparently the crime of perjury even then didn't carry the death sentence. The judge who
convicted Oates was said to have tried his best to finish him off through the whipping, though
he survived.
But perhaps even the King and judiciary in failing in this or not using other means at their
disposal, couldn't comprehend the enormity of his crimes. Oates was after all a rather absurd
character, open to ridicule.
Perhaps this is a bit similar to people today when discovering that Eliot Higgins is also a
foul-mouthed fraud – but they can't reconcile this comical ex-lingerie employee as a
menace to humanity.
3. Modern day
In the past few weeks I've read various older articles on Iraq and Syria. US troops
shooting people for fun from a helicopter . The perpetrators are still free – the
whistle-blowers who exposed that, and other events in prison or exile.
Last year we learned about a shocking massacre of Syrian children,
unreported in the mainstream media . Mainstream journalists through their one-sided
distortions of the conflict and silence, perpetuating the myth that the terrorists who carried
out this mass murder are freedom fighters.
And as I've mentioned, we've seen firmer evidence of what many of us knew along – that
Douma was a staged fabrication as a pretext for air-strikes and dangerously escalating the
Syrian war. The likes of Eliot Higgins and others in the media, colluding in the cover-up of
mass murder which likely facilitated this event. And for those honest journalists and experts
who bring the truth of these staged events to us,
smears will no doubt continue .
Higgins and others in the media who lie, misinform or remain silent are no better than those
shooting civilians from helicopters or starting these wars in the first place. In fact, they
have killed more and keep killing.
This modern-day Titus Oates, and others share a big responsibility for death and destruction
in the Middle East and a dangerous new Cold War.
As I say, I think people are waking up to the distorted narratives and misdirections which
have inflicted war on others. Now they need to take the next step and grasp the sheer enormity
of the crimes and the risks of global conflict if we don't act.
So, how do we achieve this and get in a position of holding the criminals and war
propagandists to account?
By confronting them directly and mercilessly. As Jeremy Corbyn should have done over the
anti-Semitism hoax. Perhaps we should adopt some of the tactics they use against the
truth-tellers and whistle-blowers. I don't mean by lies or smears. Maybe even ridiculing these
people and their nonsense might have the effect of trivialising the crimes they have
committed.
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
We need to recognise more the seriousness of the crimes. This commentary from the usually
measured Piers Robinson about the staged event in Douma reflects the true gravity of the
situation in
terms of the OPCW complicity .
4. The hijacking of OPCW
The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As
the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have
suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass
murder."
We need to now apply this strong language to all crimes committed, be it from the soldiers
on the ground, the governments starting these wars or supplying terrorists or the media which
promote mass murder through their lies, distortions and silence when presented with the true
facts.
We need to go on the offensive and call out the criminals and spell out in no uncertain
terms what we are dealing with. With the evidence and fact-based analogies or arguments we
publish we should be using more commentary such as 'mass murderer', 'traitor' or 'terrorist
propagandist'.
This is particularly important in light of events in recent days. The assassination of
General Qasem Soleimani has been normalised in both mainstream and on social media. The people
legitimising state-sponsored murder in offices thousands of miles away from Iran, woefully
ignorant of the potential of this causing a chain of events which could visit our door
soon.
Above all, we should specifically name and shame the individuals promoting war. This needs
to be relentless. The official war narratives which have crumbled so far are ample evidence of
wrongdoing on a vast scale. So, we can be confident in doing this with the truth firmly on our
side.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted
wardropper ,
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
Yes indeed.
I was, however, reminded today of the huge mountain we yet have to climb before it can be
normal again NOT to be corrupt and wicked. The scenario was a session of acrimony in a US
Senate chamber, and according to the NYTimes, "Tensions grew so raw after midnight that Chief
Justice Roberts cut in just before 1 a.m. to admonish the managers and the president's
lawyers to "remember where they are" and return to "civil discourse." "
"Remembering where you are", when dealing with Titus Oates and other vulgar frauds is perhaps
not entirely appropriate ?
wardropper ,
Apologies, I forgot to set the first sentence in quotes
Thom ,
Hitchens may be on the level on this particular issue but it is part of a wider deception
where Hitchens poses as a friend to critical thinkers and then tells them they are helpless
and/or can do nothing about it. If he really had journalistic integrity he wouldn't be taking
a salary from the Mail on Sunday, a newspaper that relentlessly lied for the Tories at the
last election, with the help of the itelligence agencies.
Koba ,
As good as Hitchens has done here he's still at heart a Trotskyist he lives a good split and
a toothless display just like the Trotskyists he used to side with. His brother went from
Trotskyist to soft neocon and peter went from Trotskyist to an ardent Christian Conservative
in a veeeeeery short space of time. Plus there dad was deeeeep in with the establishment and
his mum Jewish. So .
Bellingcrap is just another scam like Dupes (Snopes) and Politi"facts". All of them are
funded by the Atlantic Council and the CIA front National Endowment for "Democracy". Their
cover as an "independent objective fact checking service" is about as transparent as Saran
Wrap.
tonyopmoc ,
I really liked this when I read it this morning, before the grandkids came round, but I
thought some of the comments a bit severe..
I mean this photo is of some 40 year old kid, who lives in Leicester, and his
Mum/wife/sister or whatever works in the local Post Office .
I personally had never heard of Brown Noses, and I have never personnally succeeded in
getting anything I wrote, posted above our below the line, since The Manchester Guardian
moved from Manchester to London, and whilst I do love reading some of the posters' comments
well look face it.
Even though Rhys probabaly doesn't like what this kid writes – Elliot is it? he is
hardly going to come round with a chainsaw, to cut his head off is he? He probably never even
thought of it.
He did say he is small fry, and he probably is still a virgin (been brainwashed – so
he actually belives the model doll is better. What has he got to compare it to?)
So I can't blame any of them.
There are alternatives as well as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and all those Dating
Websites, when almost everything you write gets deleted.
Just go down the local pub when there is a good band on. Even I can pull there, but I am
better looking than both Rhys and Elliot
I Like Girls.
I am a man. It's Normal
Just keep fit dancing and smiling, and you will be O.K.
Tony
paul ,
The prime importance of these endless hoaxes, smears, lies, fabrications and official
approved conspiracy theories, lies not so much in the events themselves as what it says about
the nature of the people who rule over us and their courtiers and handmaidens in the MSM.
It would take a whole forest of trees merely to catalogue all their lies over the years,
whether it's the Iraq Incubator Babies, the black Viagra fuelled rape gangs in Libya, the
Syrian Gas Hoaxes, 9/11, Iraq's WMD, Iran's non existent nuclear weapons, Skripal,
Russiagate, Ukrainegate, or the communist spy/ terrorist/ anti semitic smear campaign against
Corbyn. And that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. You could go back further to
Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf, the "Holocaust", Zinoviev Letter, Bayonetted
Belgian Babies, Raped Belgian Nuns, Human Bodies Made Into Soap. The list is endless.
We have been lied to consistently for years, decades, and generations. And these lies have
been peddled endlessly in the MSM, no matter how ludicrous and transparently false they are.
In the absence of direct personal knowledge or very convincing evidence to the contrary, you
just have to assume that everything we have ever been told, are being told, and will be told,
and most of the accepted historical record, are simply false. Nothing, nothing at all, can
ever be taken at face value.
And those who rule over us and who are responsible for these lies are psychopathic
subhuman filth devoid of any moral values or any redeeming features whatsoever. They are a
thousand times worse than the worst mass murderers or child killers who have ever been
through our courts. The Moors Murderers, the Ted Bundys, the Jeffrey Dahmers, were seriously
damaged individuals who killed a handful of victims. And they did their own dirty work. The
Blairs, the Campbells, the Straws, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, the Allbrights,
the Macrons, the Camerons, the Netanyahus, the Trumps, have the blood of millions on their
hands. They and their wire pullers are responsible for the death, starvation and misery of
tens and hundreds of millions.
So when Blair, or Johnson, or Trump or whoever is interviewed on television, you have to
remember that individual is a thousand times worse than the Moors Murderers, and we would
actually be that much better off if Brady or Hindley were ruling over us. They deserve no
respect or deference or legitimacy. They plot the murders of millions and the starvation of
tens of millions – and laugh and giggle as they do so. They should be simply recognised
for what they awe – psychopathic subhuman filth.
I do agree with you Paul and of course all you say is true. One of the main problems is that
these people have the power to build artificial constructs sufficient for the masses to
believe and perpetuated through their bought and paid for MSM whose journalists are mere foot
soldiers and wish only to get their pay checks. They have no reason to question the lies and
distortions pedaled to them by TPTB – they merely repeat the false narrative:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it!" – Upton Sinclair
And we, the great 99%, have little power to change things except within our local network.
We can shout all we like on social media but it changes nothing until the great crisis
reoccurs and perhaps the masses will rise and demand a just and equitable system. Until that
day perhaps this little video will provide an understanding:
The business of the MSM throughout the ages has been to traumatise or at least just generally
worry the public with headlines focused on fear, envy, anger, revenge, and hate. Include all
five in your story and you're well on the way to a Pulitzer Prize, bestowed on the profession
by one of the great muckrakers of all time. It's not incidental that there have been a
disturbing number of winners that have turned out to be dissembling frauds. Add to this the
fact that 'journalism' training apparently does not teach entrants to distinguish the
difference between opinion and news, and the die is cast: propaganda as news.
Dungroanin ,
Here is what BellEndScat supporting Rusbridger is moaning about.
"For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been
dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the
owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the
World).
The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going
to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the
second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we
can only surmise what is going on.
But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than
£70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The
BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in
damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach
£1bn."
"Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the
Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise
what is going on."
-- --
Completely ignoring that the Integrity Iniative infested Guardian ITSELF objected to the
recommendation of Levesons thoroughly public Inquiry and opposition to a independent press
regulator!
It would have been a building block and certainly stopped most of the continued press
misbehaviour over the last 5 years.
Neither Fish nor Fowl Mr Rusbridger. More sinner that saint, more like.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Going to the heart of what Bellingcat, MI6 and CIA is Pompeo's: "We lie, we cheat, we steal."
These evil filth are devoid of any moral code and have no respect whatsoever for the laws of
God or Man. At which point, consider Moses' (how apt) Ten Commandments. There among them is:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness". Think what you will of these Ten, but as a moral code,
they were quite useful.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Would that all these scum could share the fate of their progenitor, Streicher-without the '
necktie party'. Life at hard labour would do the lot of them much good.
Brianeg ,
I looked at the Veterans Today link and it all sounds very plausible'
However in today's world nothing makes sense especially when the questions arise.
Is it possible to change the signal of an aircrafts transponder remotely. Can the target
acquisition radar on the missile be spoofed remotely. Just why did the flight control officer
sanction the take off of this plane in the middle of a war unless they were party to the
whole thing.. Just what were the six Israeli F-35 jets doing flying close to the Iranian
border?
Okay there is a lot of smoke but just where is the fire.
Just as interesting is that none of the twelve Iranian missiles was intercepted and there
are rumours that the Iranians were able to take out of action American air defences.
I am sure that like with Douma when the majority of NATO missiles were intercepted by
missiles that were decades old, you wonder what might happen when most of the middle east is
covered by the S-300 and later versions.
This is a story that has got a long way to run and we might never hear the ending.
Dungroanin ,
Facts are inconvenient.
Many planes took off.
This one was delayed by the pilot 'to remove overloading'.
Reports of Cruise missiles heading in.
The thing about 'chips' is they could easily be identified by putting them in a black box
and watching what they do using a chip which only does that!
The whole bs about it's THEM not US crap falls away. Just need some open source simple
'custodian' chip manufacturer to make that available. If it can be made a 'gate keeper' than
we are all safe.
Mucho ,
"It sounds a bit MAGA. "
After this, I will never, ever read any of your comments ever again. Get lost!
Mucho ,
You talk so much crap. Please, keep it to yourself
Dungroanin ,
I ain't saying that is your opinion am I?
The bit I watched was him being gung-ho about getting back 'control of microprocessors'
!!!
There is a big difference between designing chips and 'manufacturing' facilities'.
Have you never wondered why most actual building of small electrical component equipment
takes place in Asia?
I don't care wherher you read my comments- i am free to post what I want on whatevet
article and whoevers comment. And stick to facts.
Mucho ,
"The bit I watched ".
Honestly, I am so tired of people who comment on things they know nothing about. Everything
you say is wrong, because you are speaking from a position of total ignorance, because you
haven't watched the films.
Watch 1 to 3. Watch 22 and 23 ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not skimming. Then comment. Every
inaccurate comment you make is covered in detail. Honestly it's no wonder we're so fucked.
From 2005 after one google search, time spent on this, 10 seconds:
"While Yona was developed in partnership with one of Intel's California centers, the 65nm
microprocessor product is the first to be developed in its entirety, both the architecture
and strategy, by Intel engineers at its Israel plants in Haifa and Yakum. " https://www.israel21c.org/intels-new-chip-design-developed-in-israel/
You know zilch, you understand nothing, you make assumptions, you don't watch or read the
material, and then in your total ignorance, you spew your feeble thoughts on this forum.
Moron
Mucho ,
You define the phrase "ignorant Brit"
Dungroanin ,
Mucho since you FAILED instantly in your promise to ignore me – i will respond to your
toy throwing out of the parambulator.
First just telling people to WATCH something without explaining what the salient point to
be learnt – is not the way to influence or educate.
I prefer reading an argument- I definitely do not spend hours watching TV or listening to
propaganda by msm / indy or 'shock jocks' – that last was the personality I saw and
didn't feel the need to hear anymore as I don't when Nigel Farage and his ilk do on the radio
here.
If you want to inform or prove something to me or anyone else kindly post a link to a
written piece.
Second, chips are designed eveywhere there is such competence. Chip manufacturing mainly
improved theough research in top universities.
The UK was a lead chip designer too.
None of that means the Israelis haven't monopolosed tech and own many patents. The fact is
the Israelis ARE part of the 5+1 eyed world Empire – they are the plus one. Snowdens
whistleblowing makes absolutely clear that the +1 gets a higher clearance than the +4.
That's as nice as I am prepared to be, so finally, that last paragraph is what is known as
PROJECTION. Look it up and learn that it comes from your fav bogeymen brainfuckers.
That is some serious self-hate you have going on – work on it.
Take it easy ok?
Mucho ,
Number 23 is totally relevant too, going deep into chips, backdooring and kill switch usage
Koba ,
So the mocking of maga is what set you off? Fuck maga and it's idiot supporters great nations
don't slaughter civilians for capital
chris morris is very funny has a fine body of twisted comedick works
for all his charm his role is too destroy society degrade
he is khazar after all
sacha baron co hen the names speaks for itself an empty cruel tool
never trust a coen cohen khan or cowen or co they cookoo
eliot mcfuck higgins is not oirish
he is not certainly related to snooker loopy or is it darts i cannot remember hero alex
higgins.
eliot"s dad is rita katz from site intel group amaq news
his mom barbera lerner spector
or is it vice versa
versa vice
whatever
shirley you
get my the friends of the oirish israel drift
so to speaks
or sum such
Mucho ,
Brilliant, insightful, logical hypothesis of the recent plane downing over Iran by Jeremy
Rothe Kushel. Ignore the video, this is about the written article.
For further info about Israeli tech domination, what it is, where it comes from and the
implications of this, go to Brendon O Connell's YT channel. Number 22 in his list is very
important.
Mucho ,
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel is a very important member of the truth community, in no small part due
to the fact that he is an Ashkenazi Jew. My personal belief is that in the end, the Jewish
community will play a pivotal role in weeding out the evil that rules over us. I wish we
didn't have these labels, that we could have true freedom to play our chosen role in our God
created realm, but at this stage in the game, we're stuck with our divide and rule labels and
systems of control.
Jeremy's style is to the point, he has great depth of knowledge, an encyclopedic knowledge of
his field and is a highly astute commentator. He presents a lot of complex information in
fairly easy to digest chunks with his co-host, Greg McCarron, on their show "The Antedote" on
YT, as well as doing a lot of guerilla style activism in US politics. Highly recommended.
norman wisdom ,
i met elliot many years ago
the chap on the 8 year old lap top above
we called him fat face down the synagogue ohh how we laughed
he laughed as well everytime someone said it
such fun
are rabbi one day organised a trip and lecture tour of chatham house the belly of the
beast.
we learnt all about how tough regime change was and how difficult it is to do on a bbc size
budget.
what we learnt was that having are people everywhere really helped
scripted up to speed influencer roles in media in public on track on page working cog
like.
a kind of khazar collective non semites only for security reasons of course.
we could work from a very low pound dollar and shekels base and still be very effective.
never under estimate the benjamins or elliots it is folks like this that are the real hero
of the oded yinon
yes sir
already my life
fat face eliot boy done good
and like all khazar he hates the sephardim jewisher and the unclean arab which is shirley
a bonus is it not
George Mc ,
First off, if folks haven't a clue who Harold Shipman is, you're not going to get far with
Titus Oats. At the most they might think it's a character from Gormenghast.
Second, I initially misread the article and thought that the figure from the 17th century
actually WAS Higgins of Bellingcat. And if that seems an absurd assumption to make, even
temporarily, it doesn't seem much more absurd than some of the stuff he says e.g.
I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo.
The point has been raised that there are psyops perpetrated with a malicious sense of
humour as if to say, "These suckers will swallow anything". Higgins with his "education" from
Arnold and Rambo may be an example of one of those jokes.
Third, and to end on an optimistic note, I like the 17th century sentencing and recommend
we bring it back:
and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
Dungroanin ,
Admin – a suggestion on keeping recent articles available from the top of the page.
Problem: As you add new aricles at top left the ones on the very right drop away! Almost
as if being binned into a memory hole.
Solution: allow a scroll at the right hand edge so that these older links are easily
available to readers. Only a minor coding change without any change to your front page.
Tallis Marsh ,
I concur! I'm sure many of us will appreciate a scroll on the right hand edge so we can
access the older articles. Thanks in advance, OffG!
Oliver ,
HM Armed Forces operations in Syria follow the doctrine of Major General Sir Frank Kitson who
learnt his stuff in Kenya in the 1950s. Murder, torture, rape the staples of the British
military's modern terrorist ability. NATO doctrine too.
This is an important article: one of the few that dares to express that Douma et al are not
mere false flags they a darkly psychotic form of 'snuff propaganda porn' (including the
recycling and rearanging of 'props' that were until recently animate human souls with a
lifetime of possibility abnegated for ideology). The Working Group on Syria is part of a
small counter-narrative subset – along with Sister Agnes Mariam, Vanessa Beeley, RT (on
occasion), UK Column, The Indicter, Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli – who are willing to
state plainly that this is child murder. Now I wholeheartedly commend Kevin that we should
name and shame the culprits and their supporters.
"No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people
for the true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks."
I had a similar epiphany in early 2016. The barbaric of murder of starved and thirsty
children at Rashidin – Syrian innocence lured by much needed sweets and drinks only to
be blown apart in front of their mothers. Anyone who supports the White Helmets terrorist
construct and their NATO-proxy child-murderers needs to be exposed. But what if that trail of
exposure leads back to the leader of the Labour party: who had just personally endorsed the
charity funding of the White Helmets? And continued to support the Jo Cox Foundation of
Syrian humanitarian bombers and R2P interventionists? Which itself is a front for the dark
money web of 'philanthrocapitalism' that is the shadow support network for regime change
crimes against humanity. This is when righteous indignation meets the dark wall of silence
around the social construction of reality. Especially if you put Jeremy Corbyn in the
frame.
What this means is the ability to frame dark actors for the true evil they are has to be a
two-way flow. Meaning is created across networks, not just by naming but by naming and
agreeing across narrative communities. Again, this is not abstruse: it is social reality.
Social reality is not reality: it is a consensual constructivism. Significant numbers of
others have to be in a position of consensual agreement in order to challenge the dominant
narrative(s). So I echo the sentiment that many can see that the dominant narrative –
especially concerning Syria – is deeply flawed. But they are as yet unwilling to admit
that the depth of the flaw is in fact a tear in social reality that cannot be easily
healed.
This is the aspect of social reality called 'universe maintenance'. Doxa is the reality
constructing belief set – the episteme of interacting beliefs. The narrative has two
main aspects: ortho-doxa and hetero-doxa – the orthodox maintaining and heterodox
subverting discourses. In order to truly subvert the hegemonic orthodoxy – there has to
be a social moment of criticality when the heterodox is no longer deniable. To reach that
point: the intrajecting true has to be believable to the hegemonic orthodoxy. Now we have a
third mode: para-doxa when the true 'state of affairs' is not believable – it is easily
rejected as paradoxical to the reigning consensus covenant of the true. This is universe
maintaining: whereby the the totality of the dominant discourse actually subsumes or repels
any paradox as a half-truth or ameliorated, disarmed less-than-true ('conspiracy theory').
This is known as 'recuperation'. Anything that meets the dominant discourse has to be
explained in the terms of the dominant discourse accommodative and recommending itself to the
dominant discourse. Which then becomes a part of the dominant universe of discourse.
A moment of the true is like a barb to a bubble. It has to be contained and wrapped in
narrative that describes and explains it into a consumable form. The full realisation of the
propagandic child murder in Syria – tacitly supported by the Labour Party and Jeremy
Corbyn in particular – would destroy the symbolic universe of social reality. Of which
it is my personal experience no one really wants to do. The correlations, direct and indirect
links, and universally maintained orthodoxy of narrative discourse point to an accomodation.
An explanation or multivariate set of explanations that problem shift and ascribe blame to
imaginary actors. To deflect or defend the personal self. Because the personal self is
independently situated outside the social sphere. Or is it?
Seeing the real event as it happens requires the perspicacity of social inclusion. We all
create social reality together: with our without layers of dualising exclusion that protects
us from the way the world really is. Who would vote to legitimise the supporters of NATO and
the child-murderers of Syria? 31 million legitimising independent social actors just did. Do
you suppose they did so in full knowledge that it is child-murder they were supporting? Or
did they create universe maintaining accommodations to the truth? That is how powerful the
screening discourses and legitimising orthodoxic narrative mythology is. It is not that it
cannot be subverted: its just that calling out the true evil has to be heard in unison by
large or social small assemblages willing to totally change everything – including
themselves. In order to transition to a different social reality one that accommodates the
truth. One which will look nothing like the social reality we choose to maintain as is.
Francis Lee ,
My first attempt didn't get through. Herewith second.
It seems to me that the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, although they may have
some impact on external geopolitical issues, are a matter for them. At the present time the
relevant question regarding the RF is as follows: Question 1. Is Russia a revionist state
intent on an expansionist foreign policy? Answer NO. But it is not going to tolerate NATO
expansion into its own strategic zones, namely, Ukraine, Georgia and the North Caucusas.
Question 2. Is the Anglo-Zionist empire in open of pursuit of a world empire intent on
destroying any sovereign state – including first and foremost Russia – which
stands in its way? Answer YES. This really is so blatant that anyone who is ethnically
challenged should seek psychiatric help. In Polls conducted around the world the US is always
cited as the most dangerous enemy of world peace, including in the US itself. Thus a small
influential (unfortunately deranged) cabal based in the west has insinuated its way into the
institutions of power and poses a real and present danger to world peace.
This being the case it is imperative to push all and any 'normal' western governments and
shape public opinion and discourse (except the nut-jobs like Poland and the Baltics) into
diplomacy. Wind down NATO just as the Warsaw Pact was wound down. that will do for starters.
Of course the PTB in all the western institutions – the media (whores) the deep state,
the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House the Arms merchants, the
security services GCHQ, the CIA, Mossad and the rest will oppose this with all the power at
their command. This is the present primary site of struggle, mainly propagandistic, cultural
and economic, but with overtones of kinetic warfare.
Similar diplomatic initiatives must be directed at China. Yes, I know all about China's
social credit policy, I don't particularly like the idea of 24 hour system of surveillance,
and I wouldn't want to live there, but is already a virtual fait accompli in the west. Again
it bears repeating that sovereign states should be left to their own devices. After all
'States have neither permanent friends of allies, only permanent interests. (Lord Palmerston,
19 century British Statesman). No more 'humanitarian interventions' thank you very much. How
about Mind our own Business non-interventions.
I make no apologies for being a foreign policy realist – if that hasn't become
apparent by this stage!
BigB ,
Francis:
The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating
the Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?
Market mechanisms and methodology are exponentially expansionist, extractivist, and
extrapolative. Market propaganda is free and equal exchange coupled with mutual development
through comparative advantage. Everyone benefits, right?
No: markets operate as vast surplus value extractors that only operate unequally to
deliver maximum competitive advantage to the suprasovereign core. Surplus value valorises
surplus capital which cannot be contained in a single domestic market: so it seeks to exploit
underdeveloped foreign markets setting up dependencies and peripheries in the satellite
states. Which keeps them maldeveloped. In short: Russia and China's wealth is not just their
own.
Russia and China are globalisation now. Globalist exponential expansionism, extractivism,
and extrapolation is the repression of humanism and destruction of the biosphere. It can't
stop growing in the cancer stage of hyper-capitalism. We are currently consuming every
resource at a material throughput increase of 3% per annum year on year. That's a 23 year
exponential doubling of material resources. And a 46 year doubling of the doubling. How long
before globalisation uses everything? How far into the race to the bottom will the market
collapse?
It would be really nice to return to a Westphalian System of non-expansionist,
non-extractivist sovereign nation states. It is just not even plausible under market
mechanisms of extraction. There can be no material decoupling and development remains
contingent on an impossible infinity: because development remains parallel and assymetrically
maintained. And all major resources are depleting exponentially too. Including the nominative
renewable and sustainable ones.
Degrowth; self-sufficiency; localised 'anti-fragility', steady-state; asymmetric
development of the marginalised and the peripheralised; regenerative agroecological
agriculture; human development not abstract market development; are just some of the
pre-requisites of a return to sovereign states. Russia 'sovereigntist' globalisation is the
expansionist opposite to that. The RF is part of the biggest market in the world that hoovers
up as much surplus value as it can before sending a large tranche of it to London. As much as
$25bn a year in capital flight into the offshore nexus of secrecy jurisdictions. It's a
globalist expansionist market mechanism that hoovers all vitality out of the life-ground.
That: I call expansionist and imperialist of which Russia and China are now the major
part.
Francis Lee ,
"The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating the
Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?"
No, I wouldn't actually. Building roads, rail connections and other trade routes doesn't
strike me as imperial expansion. No-one is being forced to join the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) or into reconfiguring their internal political and economic structures, as
the US does in Latin America or as the British did in India and Southern Africa. (East India
Company and the British British South Africa Chartered Company). The SCO is a voluntary
arrangement. Uzbekistan for example has decided not to join the central Asian Eurasian
Economic Union – well that's its prerogative. No-one is going to send any gun-boats to
force them. (I am aware that Uzbekistan is a landlocked country, but I was talking
figuratively.)
The EEU's genesis has along with the SCO and BRI has been forced upon the China/Russia
axis as part of an emerging counter-hegemonic alliance against the US's imperial
aggrandisement with its kowtowing vassals in tow. Russia has no claims on any of its
neighbours since it is already endowed with ample land and mineral deposits. China is a key
part of this essentially geopolitical bloc quite simply because the US imperial hegemon is
determined to stop China's development by all means necessary including the dragooning of
contiguous military bases in US proxy states around China's maritime borders.
A distinction should be made between rampant imperialism of the Anglo-zi0nist empire, and
the response of an increasingly bloc of states who find both their sovereignty and even their
existence threatened by the imperial juggernaut. What exactly did you expect them to do given
the hostility and destructive intent of the Empire? Defence against imperialism is not
imperialism. The defence of autonomy and sovereignty of international society and the
creation of an anti-hegemonic have the potential to finally create a transformative new world
order (and goodness knows we need one) announced at the end of the Cold War in 1991. This
ambition finds support not only in Russia and China but in other countries ready to align
with them, but also in many western countries. I obviously need to put the question again.
Who is and who is not the greatest threat to world peace? Surely to pose the question is to
answer it.
Dungroanin ,
Agree Francis.
There is a move to suggest that the Old Empire retains a 'maritime' world and the SCO
confines itself to the Eurasian land mass.
Dream on.
The Empire is DEAD. Long live the new Empire!
BigB ,
Who is the greatest threat to world peace and to the world itself? We are. The global carbon
consumption/pollution bourgeoisie. It is the global expansionist mindset that is increasing
its demands for growth – as the only solution to social problems, maldevelopment, and
maldistribution caused by excessive growth. Supply has to be met by exponentially expanding
markets. Whether this is voluntaristic or coerced makes very little difference to the market
cancer subsuming the globe. Benign or aggressive forms of cancer are still cancer. And the
net effect is the same.
Russia and China – the 'East' – uphold exactly the same corporate model of
global governance that the 'West' does. Which has been made clear in every joint communique
– especially BRICS communiques. I have made the case – following Professor
Patrick Bond – that BRICS in particular (a literal Goldman Sachs globalist marketing
ploy) – are sub-imperial, not anti-imperial. All their major institutions are dollar
denominated for loans; BRI finance is in dollars; BRICS re-capitalised the IMF; Contingency
Reserve Arrangements come with an IMF neoliberalising structural adjustment policy; etc. It
is the same model East and West. One is merely the pseudo-benign extension of the other. The
alternative to neoliberal globalisation is neoliberal globalisation. This became radiantly
clear at SPIEF 2019: TINA there is no alternative.
The perceived alternative is the reproduction of neoliberalism – which has long been
think-tanked and obvious – and its transformation from 'globalisation 3.0' to
'globalisation 4.0' trade in goods and services, with the emphasis on a transition to
high-speed interconnectivity and decoupled service economies. Something like the
Trans-Eurasian Information Super Highway (TASIM)? With a sovereigntist and social inclusivity
compact. So the neoliberal leopard can change its spots?
No. Whilst your argument is sound and well constructed: it is reliant on the early 20th
century Leninist definition of 'imperialism' as a purely militarist phenomena. Imperialism
mutated since then – from military to financial (which are not necessarily exclusive
sets) – and is set to metastasise again into 'green imperialism' of man over man (and
it is an andrarchic principle) and man (culture) over nature. Here your argument falls down
to an ecological and bio-materialist critique. Cancer is extractivist and expansionist
wherever it grows.
Russia is the fourth largest primary energy consumer on the planet. Disregarding hydro
– which is not truly ecological – it has a 1% renewable penetration. It is a
hydrocarbon behemoth set to grow the only way it knows how – consuming more
hydrocarbons. They cannot go 'green': no one can. And a with a global ecological footprint of
3.3 planets per capita, per annum, this is not sustainable. Now or ever.
So a distinction needs to be made between the old rampant neoliberal globalisation model
(3.0) – the Anglo-Zionist imperialist model – and the emergent neoliberal
globalisation model (4.0) of Russia/China's rampant ecological imperialism? And a further
distinction needs to be made about what humanity has to do to survive this distinction
between aggressive and quasi-benign cancer forms. Because we will be just as dead, just as
quick if we cannot even identify the underlying cancer we are all suffering from.
Koba ,
Big B sit down ultra! China and Russia rent empires and have no desire to be! If you're a
left winger you're another poor example of one and more than likely a Trotskyist
Richard Le Sarc ,
Love the nickname, Josef.
Louis Proyect ,
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
-- -
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories. The notion that this kind of slaughter took place to "facilitate" a false flag is
analogous to the 9/11 conspiracism that was on display here a while back and that manifested
itself through the inclusion of NYU 9/11 Truther Mark Crispin Miller on Tim Hayward's
Assadist propaganda team.
Sad, really.
Harry Stotle ,
Go on Louis, remind us about the 'terrorist passport' miraculously found at the foot of the
collapsed tower with a page coveniently left open displaying a 'Tora Bora' stamp – I
kove that bit.
I mean who, apart from half the worlds scientific community is not totally convinced by
such compelling evidence, especially when allied to the re-writing of the laws of physics in
order to rationlise the ludicrous 2 planes 3 towers conspiracy theory?
Next you'll be telling us it was necessary for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for
reasons few American'srecall beyond the neocon fantasy contructed on 11th Septemember,
2001.
Dave Hansell ,
It's clear to a blind man on a galloping horse from this comment of yours Mr Proyect that
concepts such as objective evidence, logical and rational deduction, the scientific method
etc are beyond your ken.
Faced with the facts of a collapsing narrative of obvious bullshit and lies you have
bought into, which you are incapable of facing up to, it is unsurprising that you are reduced
to such puerile school playground level deflections.
So come on, try getting out of the gutter and upping your game. Because this fare is
nothing short of sad and pathetic.
We know from the evidence of those who actually know their arse from their elbow on these
matters that the claims of an attack using chemical weapons on this site are
unsustainable.
Which leaves the issue of the bodies at the site. Given they did not lose their lives as a
result of the unscientific bullshit explanation you desperately and clearly want to be the
case the question is how did those civilians lose their lives? How did their corpses find
their way to that location?
Did Assad and his "regime" murder them and move the bodies to that site (over which they
had no control) in order to create a false flag event to get themselves falsely accused of an
NBC attack Louis? Because that's the only reasonable and rational deduction one can imply
from your argument and approach.
It is certainly more reasoned, rational and in keeping with the scientific method (you
might want to try it sometime) to surmise that the bodies on site, having not been the result
of the claimed and unsustainable narrative you have naively committed to, either died on site
from some other cause or were brought to the site for the purpose of creating your fantasy
narrative.
In the latter case it is further a matter of rational and reasoned deduction that such an
occurrence could only be carried it in circumstances in which whoever carried it out had
actual, effective and physical control of a geographical location and area situated within a
wider conflict zone.
Again, it remains a piece of factual reality that this location was not under the control
of the Assad 'regime.' Not least because otherwise there would be no logical or rational
military reason for the de facto Syrian Government and it's armed forces to waste resources
attacking it.
Unless of course he buys I to the conspiracy theory and hat they somehow organised a false
flag implicating themselves?
I'm sure everyone else here in the reality based community is waiting with bated breath
for you to 'explain' how they did this Louis.
I know I am. I could do with a good laugh.
George Mc ,
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories.
Umm – the assumption that Muslims DIDN'T do it is "Islamophobic"? Even on your own
terms you're not making much sense these days, Louis.
Hi I'm Louis an unrepentant Marxist and I willfully refuse to use block-quotes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
More proyectile vomitus in defence of child-murdering salafist vermin. How low can this
creature descend?
Louis Proyect ,
Richard, such abusive language only indicates your inability to discuss the matter at hand.
In general, a detached sarcasm works much better in polemics. You need to read Lenin to see
how it is done. I should add that I am referring to V.I. Lenin, not John Lenin who wrote
"Crippled Inside".
Richard Le Sarc ,
You defended the salafist butchers with lies, proyectile-do you not even comprehend your own
sewage? Or did someone else write it and you just appended your paw-print?
Dave Hansell ,
Apologies here. There is an open goal and the ball needs to be put in the back of the net:
Seems that Louis here is well ahead of the curve in terms of Fukuyama's well known
observation about the end of history.
For Louise history, in terms of the progress and development of human knowledge, stopped
around a century ago with whatever Lenin wrote.
But that's what happens to those who only read one book.
Sad really.
Dungroanin ,
You come across more as Yaxley – Lenin mr Tommy Proyect – but he is a MI5 stooge
unlike you cough cough.
Koba ,
Lenin hates Trotsky! Trotsky was a power mad maniac who wanted a permanent war state to
somehow spread his specific brand of "ahem" socialism, which won't win you friends! "Hi yeah
sorry we killed your family in a war we started to save you but yippee Trotsky is now in
charge so stop complaining"! You're just a bunch of liars the trots
Maggie ,
learn to use the internet which has the information you need to learn the truth:
Maggie don't take jimmy bore as some truth teller he's a bland progressive with revolutionary
slogans like proyect! He also has a habit of equating Stalin with Hitler in that god awful
nasal accent of his
Richard Le Sarc ,
Thems White Helmets is always so neat and tidy. Their mammies must have insisted that they
always look their best.
paul ,
The British taxpayer funded head choppers and throat slitters in Syria routinely committed
massacres and filmed their victims. The resulting footage was passed off by tame media hacks
as "evidence" of regime atrocities.
Koba ,
Death to the Trotskyists
Fuck proyect your name calling says it all!
Islamophobes indeed?! What an idiot
Harry Stotle ,
The alternative media, and a smattering of truth tellers are locked in an asymmetrical
information-war with the establishment – with an all too obvious 'David & Goliath'
sort of dynamic underlying it.
The question asked at the heart of this article is how to break the vice like grip
information managers hold over various geopolitical narratives, referencing events in Douma
in particular.
Alnost reflexively 9/11 comes to mind – a fairly unambiguous example of mass murder
for which the official account does not withstand even the most cursory form of scrutiny.
Professionals even went so far as to purger themselves while the investigating committee
admitted they were 'set up to fail' (to quote its chairman).
Yet the public, instead of shredding Bush, limb from limb (for the lies that were told)
rolled onto their back while the neoncons tickled their collective belly as you might do with
a particulalrly adorable puppy,
So if we can't even get to the bottom of events in the middle of New York what realistic
chance of doing so in a hostile war zone like Douma?
On balance racism, together with other forms of collective loathing is the most likely
reason why this unsatisfactory state of affairs is unlikely to change.
A collective 'them and us' mindset makes it far easier for information managers to
manipulate a visceral hatred and fear of 'the other'.
Today it is Qasem Soleimani westerners are taugyt to despise, yesterday it was Bashar
al-Assad, before that Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Nicolás
Maduro . the list just goes on and on.
Information managers simply wind the public up so that collective anger can be directed
toward governments or individuals they are trying to bring down – recent history tells
us that the public are largely oblivious to this process, so thus never learn from their
mistakes.
Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely on, is the
ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose a grave
threat to 'our way of life' while failing to notice that it is in fact our own leaders who
are carrying out the worst atrocities.
harry law ,
Harry Stotle, .."Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely
on, is the ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose
a grave threat to 'our way of life'. That's true Hermann Goring had it about right with this
quote
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for
that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for
Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the
vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at
Democracy Now.
Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the
prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the
last two decades. Wilkerson states:
Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the
beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a
few days ago, is alive and well.
America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no
end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.
We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing
right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark
Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator
Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party --
the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of
it.
What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys
and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you
looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families
assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot
of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these
endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp
jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member
of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make
war.
Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more
insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran.
Watch Wilkerson's interview here:
Putin “needs to keep his commie hands” off of the sovereign Independent Baptist church’s affairs
According to sources, local man Clarence Williams has urged his church’s lead pastor as well as local law enforcement to move
forward with an investigation into Russian hacking, claiming that there was ample evidence to support the theory that malicious
foreign agents infiltrated and influenced the outcome of a vote on the date for next month’s potluck at Second Baptist Church.
Money quote: "The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these
fraudulent investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance."
Notable quotes:
"... For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others are tenaciously withholding evidence. ..."
"... When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over 340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was incriminating. No rational person would believe that. ..."
"... The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a defender of FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court. They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want. ..."
"... Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, " there is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election ..."
"... Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story. Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing. ..."
Many government officials with long entrenched power are unwilling to give up any of that
power. In their minds, they have a right to control our lives as they see fit, with complete
indifference to our wishes. To avoid rebellion, they need to hide this fact as much as
possible. They want the citizens to believe the lie that we are a nation of laws with equal
justice under the law. To advance this lie, they have staged many theatrical productions that
they call "investigations". They try to give us the impression that they want to expose the
facts and punish wrongdoing.
Most of the big 'investigations' in the news in recent years have not been at all what they
pretended to be. The sham investigations of Hillary's email, or the Clinton Foundation, or
Weiner's laptop, or Uranium One, or Mueller's witch hunt, or Huber's big nothing, or the IG's
whitewash, or the Schiff-Pelosi charades, have all been premeditated deceptions.
There are
three types of investigations that call for different deceptions by the Deep State.
The first type is the rare honest investigation . Examples would be the attempt to find
the truth about Fast and Furious (Obama's
gunrunning operation), or the IRS scandal (Obama's
weaponizing of government). In response to real investigations, the criminals do two
things lie and hide evidence. Key evidence, even if it is under subpoena, just disappears.
In the IRS case, Lois Lerner's relevant email and the email of 6 others involved in the
scheme was just "lost". The IRS "worked tirelessly" to find the email, but hard drives
had been destroyed and back-up drives were missing, so the subpoenaed evidence could
not be provided.
For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating
procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end
of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my
memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others
are tenaciously
withholding evidence.
The second type of 'investigation' is when the Deep State pretends to investigate the
Deep State . In these 'investigations' the outcome is known in advance, but the script calls
for pretending, sometimes for years, that it an honest investigation is underway.
There was nothing about the Hillary investigations that had anything to do with finding
facts. The purpose from the beginning was exoneration. Key witnesses were given immunity
and many were allowed to attend each other's interviews. There were no early morning swat
team raids to gather evidence. Evidence was destroyed with no consequences.
When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over
340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about
finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York
agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very
quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was
incriminating. No rational person would believe that.
The dirty cops are so comfortable about getting away with lies like this that Huber can
announce that he found no corruption, when it is readily apparent that he did not interview
key witnesses . He even turned away whistleblowers
who wanted to submit evidence. A real investigator, Charles Ortel, could have given Huber a
long list of Clinton Foundation crimes
. Like the Weiner laptop fake investigation, you don't find crimes if you don't really look
for them.
The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they
just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a
defender of
FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court.
They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want.
IG
investigations have proven to be flimsy exonerations of Deep State criminality. Any
honest observer can see that there was a carefully organized plan by top officials to
control the outcome of the Presidential election. This corrupt plan involved lying to the
FISA court, illegal surveillance and unmasking of citizens and conspiring with media
partners to make sure lies were widely circulated to voters. The government conspirators
and the majority of the media were functioning as nothing more than a branch of Hillary's
campaign. That's a lot of power aimed at destroying Trump.
To an IG investigator, this monumental scandal was presented to us as nothing to be very
concerned about. Yes, a few minor rules were inadvertently broken and there did appear to
be some bias, but there was no reason at all to think that bias effected any actions. If
the agencies involved make a training video and set aside a day for a training meeting,
then that should satisfy us completely.
The third type of investigation involves investigating an imaginary crime for political
reasons . The Mueller investigation and the impeachment investigation are two examples of
this. Probably as a justification for illegal surveillance they were already doing, the
conspirators pretended that there was powerful evidence that Trump was colluding with Putin
to win the election. Lies about this issue propelled the country into 3 years of stories
about nothing stories and investigations about something that never happened. Never in the
history of nothing has nothing been so thoroughly covered.
Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, "
there
is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to
prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media
partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat
team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very
un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian
troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the
desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to
favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election .
Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort
failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority
in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary
crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that
allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story.
Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing.
The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these fraudulent
investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance.
We are increasingly angry that there is a double standard of justice in this country. There
is a protected class of people who are not prosecuted for their crimes. This needs to end.
The sheeple are easily led including the opposition sheeple. Two quick examples:
1. In the email scandal, Hillary was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of violating the
FOIA by conducting all State Department business via a personal email She was guilty. Yet her
team, listen up sheeple, her team made it about whether or not classified information was
transmitted. This is a gray area which could be defended. She knew she was guilty of the FOIA
violation because it was the whole reason the server was set up in the first place. Yet she
got away with it because everyone focused on the classifications of emails which was a gray
area.
2. In the Weiner / Abedin laptop matter, it is and was illegal for any of these emails to
be on a personal computer. Again, guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet again everyone
focused on what was in the emails and not the fact that just possessing the emails was
illegal. So the FBI was able to say nothing new here and let it drop. If another group such
as the US Marshals was in charge of this investigation, Weiner / Abedin would have been fully
charged with possessing these emails. They would have been pressured to reveal why it was
named Insurance and have been asked to cut a deal.
The purpose of show trials is to fool those that don't pay attention. There are millions
of US citizens that get their news from their neighbor or a narrow set of information that is
disseminated by media that parrot their providers verbatim without challenge. Such people are
quite regularly fooled and some vote.
The double standard justice system in America is appalling and even worse than communists.
Americans really don’t have any credit to criticize communist countries. The ruling
class is no better than them.
The media and ruling classes have tried decades to brainwashed the mass to believe that
the less or even not corrupted.
They could have never pulled off the JFK assassination had the internet existed back in
1963. Time for the Epstein *********** to be posted on the internet. Even the asleep would
realize the unimaginable evil that has been controlling this world for millenia.
I am not sure about that,,we have the net now,,and although there are many of us that pay
attention and figure out their crimes and hoax's,,,,they still get away with them,,,,,,NASA
still gets 59 million a day to fake the space program,,,
Why not? They pulled off 9/11. And what do we have? The same as with the JFK murder.
People still arguing over how it was done, and ignoring the obvious, historically established
now, of who benefited and why. Grassy knoll, 2nd shooter, or directed energy weapons or
explosives, internet or not, still chasing the tail.
For our frequent fliers who are members of our "Chopping Heads and Eating Livers of
Infidels" Afriqiyah Airways is a code share flight with Turkish Airlines. Also, remember your
points can be used in Paradise to rent hotel rooms for you and your 72 virgins.
Turkish Airlines. The airline of choice for Jihadis.
"... There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students, who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater specialties). ..."
"... Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from the Red Army was waiting for you. ..."
"... translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books were translated into Russian within a very short interval. ..."
"... But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own (except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-). ..."
"... Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic sense. ..."
"... I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no "business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science ..."
"... The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the talent of those few who managed to get into universities. ..."
"... Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations. ..."
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet
educational system is delusional.
However, the US has understood something that the Russians and any decent people don't get:
The people are consumers. They should not be educated beyond the needed to use the most recent
applications on their electronic devices. Anything further carries the danger of having them
discontent and thus an inroad to the Western entity.
Also, a military is not there to win wars and subsequently have a headache about how to deal
with the conquered people. It is about wrecking far away places and providing opportunities to
claim invoices from the federal government.
Modern, hybrid warfare is not about applying this or that military means, but about
occupying the universities, courts and parliaments of the subdued people – finally
occupying their minds. And yes, to do so includes that the weaponry should look cool and
provide job opportunities for the hopeless youngsters of that amorphous mass formerly called
the nation.
The Russians, Chinese, Iranians will have to stay alert 24/7/365 not to fall into the abyss
of depravity that the Great Western Civilisation is offering to them. I am afraid, that the
threat is very real that in the end they will be worn down.
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet educational
system is delusional.
Believe me or not, I would prefer the USA system of education (with all its warts) to the
Soviet system in the 70-90th without any hesitation. And with the same quality of students, the
USA would achive the same or better results.
There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students,
who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary
universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater
specialties).
Soviet universities were as poor as church rats, which has one good side effect that they
were forced to concentrate more on classic subjects like physics and math, which do not require
expensive labs. So students got a solid background in math and physics. But that's about
it.
Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the
university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic
rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from
the Red Army was waiting for you.
As emigrants from the USSR told me, programming courses were simply dismal, and graduates
essentially learned the craft of the jobs, not at universities.
Even math books were the second rate in comparison with the USA textbooks of the same
period.
They were written by a representative of so-called axiomatic schools and were extremely
boring and uninformative. But many good math books were translated (for example, Polia
writings) Actually, as I understand, translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only
first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection
and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books
were translated into Russian within a very short interval.
Academic degrees were also mostly fake (much like they are in the USA now ;-): one of my
friends told me that his Ph.D. from top Ukrainian University was counted only as a master
degree in the USA by the commission which studied his thesis (I believe in NYU)
But again, most good western books on tech subjects were translated and were somewhat
available. And if you compare Feynman lectures (which were also translated) to Soviet physics
textbooks, Soviet textbooks were not even competitive. Some "cutting edge" books was OK. But
very few.
The professors and lectures (including professors large part of which were just incompetent
jerks, promoted due to nepotism or Communist party activities) deteriorated to the level that
was simply painful to watch. Some came to lectures completely unprepared or drank, or tried to
teach some completely bogus theories of their own invention. Many did not come at all sending
assistants.
My impression is that essentially, in 1990, Soviet science and education experienced the
same crisis as the Communist social system as a whole.
But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of
the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university
teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own
(except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-).
Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects
for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no
matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic
sense.
That was especially true as you also need to pass exams in Marxism philosophy and Political
economy to get a degree. Those subjects were frown upon, but in retrospect were useful:
students were forced to read classics, not junk like in neo-classical economics courses in the USA.
I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not
the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no
"business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of
the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science
The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was
staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of
whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the
talent of those few who managed to get into universities.
Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many
problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of
Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations.
Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the
works of the USA military machine
Notable quotes:
"... I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet. ..."
"... Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption, and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted villages, a la My Lai. ..."
"... Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies', that's not quite as obvious. ..."
"... And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long progeny. ..."
"... So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA. ..."
"... Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it happened on his 'watch'. ..."
"... We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations remains to be seen. ..."
"... Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse. In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve honesty and common sense? ..."
Previously, most discussions of the Trump presidency reflexively proceeded to either visceral
disgust etc or accolades of some species. Trumps words and manners dominated. As things
developed, and actual results were recorded, a body of more sober second thought developed.
And a variation on these more experience/reality based assessments is what b has delivered
above.
Some of my points that follow are repeats, some are new. On the whole I see Trump as a
helpful and positive-result really bad President.
I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural
catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having
destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet.
As one aspect of this cultural catastrophe, let's refer back to the United States attack
on Indochina, which accomplished millions of dead and millions of wounded people, and birth
defects still in uncounted numbers as a legacy of dioxin etc laden chemical warfare. The
millions of dead included some tens of thousands of American soldiers, and even more wounded
physically, and even more wounded 'mentally'.
Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within
the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism
for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption,
and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted
villages, a la My Lai.
When asked what it was all about, Kissinger lied in an inadvertently illuminating way:
"basically nothing" was how he put it, if memory serves.
During and after the attack on Indochina, the US trained, aided, financed, etc active
death squads in Central and South America, demonstrating that the United States was an equal
opportunity death dealer.
Now this was a bit of a meander away from the Trump topic, but note that Trump came to
power within the above cultural context and much more pathology besides, talking about ending
the warfare state. Again, this is not an attempt to portray Trump as either sincere or
insincere in that policy. In terms of ideas, it was roughly speaking a good idea.
Another main part of the Trump message was 'let's rebuild America'. And along with the
de-militarization and national program of rejuvenation there was the 'drain the swamp' meme,
which again resonated. And once again, I am not arguing that Trump was sincere, or for that
matter insincere. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make: which could essentially
by reduced to: what will be the actual meaning and potential impact of Trump?
Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm
is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed
repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies',
that's not quite as obvious.
And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from
the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine
has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long
progeny.
So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable
control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA.
Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption
of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it
happened on his 'watch'.
Now the deep cultural, including political, pathology in the United States, in its many
manifestations remain. We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of
part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his
disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations
remains to be seen.
The frantic attempt to deflect attention from and give mainly derisive media coverage to
Tulsi Gabbard is a case in point. Is she the harbinger of a growing political movement aiming
to dismantle the military empire project?
Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but
related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and
bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse.
In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve
honesty and common sense?
In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more
disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev , had warned:
"We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an
enemy."
...Winning the cold war brought Americans face-to-face with a predicament comparable to that
confronting the lucky person who wins the lottery: hidden within a windfall is the potential
for monumental disaster.
I don't think it will be long before we see Congress in the US calling for invasion of Russia
on the grounds of a lack of diversity, lack of respect for LGBTP and so forth.
Yes! The inability to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite its being published because that policy goal--to
attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world--is actually 100%
against genuine American Values as expressed by the Four Freedoms (1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear) and the articulated goals/vision of the UN Charter--World Peace arrived at via collective security and diplomacy,
not war--which are still taught in schools along with Wilson's 14 Points. Then of course, there's the war against British Tyranny
known as the Spirit of '76 and the Revolutionary War for Independence and the documents that bookend that era. In 1948, Kennan
stated, in an internal discussion that was never censored, the USA consumed 60% of global resources with only 5% of the population
and needed to somehow come up with a policy to both continue and justify that great disparity to both the domestic and international
audience. Yet, those truths were never provided in an overt manner to the American public or the international audience. The upshot
being the US federal government since it dropped the bombs on Japan has been lying or misleading its people such that it's now
habitual. And Trump's diatribe against the generals reflects the reality that he too was taken in by those lies.
Trump is such a douchebag. He claims there were no lives lost due to their "early warning system" -- no mention that the "early
warning system" was a phone call!
Now he's once again justifying assassination, etc.
there was no "better choice" between trump and clinton. i still think clinton represented a greater danger than trump of getting
into a war with russia, but they are both warmongers first class. for our next election, we may have a choice between ebola and
flesh eating bacteria, or brain cancer and leprosy. if the game is rigged there's no winning it playing by the game's "rules".
Barbara Boyd correctly called Kent testimony "obsine" becase it was one grad neocon
gallisination, which has nothing to do with real facts on the ground.
She attributed those dirty games not only to the USA but also to London.
If you want to stop the coup against the President, you must understand how Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton's State Department carried out a coup against the democratically elected
government of Ukraine in 2014.
In a November 16 webcast, LaRouche PAC's Barbara Boyd presented the real story behind the
present impeachment farce: how the very forces running the attack on President Trump, used
thugs as their enforcers, in order to turn Ukraine into a pawn in the British geopolitical war
drive against Russia.
Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani
was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from
Peace? Who does not?
The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just
an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates
any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological
revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.
The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why
Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC
lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this
situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.
The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that
the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are
involved.
The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which,
in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to
compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street
interests (disaster capitalism.)
In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening.
Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current
head of Mossad probably played some role.
It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which
includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was
trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a
long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of
MIC.
IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a
real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense
spending.
State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some
neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA
population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the
USA.
"If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee
working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans
The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of
Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "
"... Historians interpret and reinterpret history. It is a normal process except when politicians do the reinterpreting. Their interests are not intellectual but rather political. They seek justification for their politics by evoking the past, history as they need it to be. ..."
"... The greatest blow to collective security came in September 1938 when France and Britain concluded the Munich accords which sanctioned the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia ..."
"... After the war, the west launched a campaign accusing Stalin of being Hitler's "ally" ..."
"... Western propaganda claimed that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were "allies". World War II was entirely their fault, while France, Britain and Poland were innocent victims of totalitarianism ..."
"... After the 2014 putsch, Ukrainian Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera were made into national heroes ..."
"... As mightily as Poland seeks to falsify history, it cannot cover up the atrocities of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators against Poles, remembered in a recently released Polish hit film, "Volhynia" ..."
Historians interpret and reinterpret history. It is a normal process except when
politicians do the reinterpreting. Their interests are not intellectual but rather political.
They seek justification for their politics by evoking the past, history as they need it to
be.
The origins and waging of World War II are of special interest to western politicians, past
and present. This was true even early on. In December 1939 the British government decided to
lay a white paper on the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations during the spring and summer of that
year to organise a war-fighting alliance against Hitlerite Germany. Foreign Office officials
carefully picked out a hundred or so documents to show that they and the French had been
serious about organising an anti-German alliance and that the USSR was principally responsible
for the failure of the negotiations. In early January 1940 the white paper reached the stage of
page proofs. Nearly everyone in London was impatient to publish it. All that was needed was the
approval of France and the Polish government in exile. Much to the surprise of British
officials, France opposed the publication of the white paper, and so did the Polish government
in exile. This may also come as a surprise to present day readers. Why would French and Polish
officials be opposed to a publication considered "good propaganda" by the British to blacken
the reputation of the Soviet Union?
Let's allow the French ambassador in London to explain in his own words. "The general
impression which arises from reading [the white paper]", he wrote in a memorandum dated 12
January 1940, "is that from beginning to end the Russian government never ceased to insist on
giving the agreement [being negotiated] the maximum scope and efficacy. Sincere or not, this
determination of the Soviet government to cover effectively all the possible routes of a German
aggression appears throughout the negotiations to collide with Anglo-French reluctance and with
the clear intention of the two governments to limit the field of Russian intervention".
And the French ambassador did not stop there. He observed that critics who felt that the
USSR had been forced into agreement with Nazi Germany by Anglo-French "repugnance" to make
genuine commitments in Moscow would find in the white paper "a certain number of arguments in
their favour." The language used here was in the finest traditions of diplomatic
understatement, but the Foreign Office nevertheless got the message. The more so because there
was this further, telling irritatant to Gallic sensibilities that the documents selected for
the white paper failed to show that they, the French, had been more anxious to conclude with
Moscow than their British allies. What would happen, the French wondered, if the Soviet
government published its own collection of documents in reply to a white paper? Who would
public opinion believe? The French were not sure of the answer.
As for the Poles in exile, they could not much insist, but they too preferred that the white
paper not be published. Even in those early days Polish exiles were not anxious to publicise
their responsibilities in the origins of the war and their swift defeat at the hands of the
Wehrmacht.
In fact, all three governments, British, French and Polish, had much to hide, not just their
conduct in 1939, but during the entire period following Adolf Hitler's rise to power in January
1933. The Soviet government was quick to ring the alarm bells of danger and to propose a
defensive, anti-Nazi alliance to France and Britain. And yes, Moscow also made overtures to
Poland. The Soviet commissar for foreign affairs, M. M. Litvinov, even hoped to bring fascist
Italy into an anti-Nazi coalition. In Bucharest, the Soviet government made concerted efforts
to gain Romanian participation in a broad anti-German alliance redolent of the Entente
coalition of World War I.
Were all these Soviet efforts a ruse to dupe the west while Soviet diplomats secretly
negotiated with Nazi Germany? Not at all, Russian archives appear conclusive on this point. The
Soviet overtures were serious, but its would-be allies demurred, one after the other, except
for Poland, which never for a moment considered joining an anti-Nazi alliance with the Soviet
Union. Commissar Litvinov watched as Soviet would-be allies sought to compose with Nazi
Germany. Poland persistently obstructed Soviet policy and Romania, under Polish and German
pressure, backed away from better relations with Moscow. One Soviet ambassador even recommended
that the Soviet government not break off all relations with Berlin in order to send a message,
especially to Paris and London, that the USSR could also compose with Nazi Germany. The four
most important French diplomats in Moscow during the 1930s warned repeatedly that France must
protect its relations with the USSR or risk seeing it come to terms with Berlin. In Paris their
reports disappeared into the files, ultimately unheeded. The greatest blow to collective
security came in September 1938 when France and Britain concluded the Munich accords which
sanctioned the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Neither Czechoslovak nor Soviet diplomats were
invited to participate in the negotiations. As for Poland, it allied itself with Nazi Germany.
"If Hitler obtains Czechoslovak territories," said Polish diplomats before Munich, "then we
will have our part too".
The greatest blow to collective security came in September 1938 when France and Britain
concluded the Munich accords which sanctioned the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia
Could it be a surprise that after nearly six years of failed attempts to organise an
anti-Nazi front, that the Soviet government would lose all confidence in the French and British
governments and cut a deal with Berlin to stay out of a war, which everyone recognised was
imminent? This was the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact signed on 23 August 1939. As for the
Poles, in their hubris and blindness, they mocked the idea of an alliance with the USSR right
up until the first day of the war.
The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was the result of the failure of six years of Soviet
policy to conclude an anti-Nazi alliance with the west and not the cause of that failure. The
British ambassador in Moscow accused the Soviet government of "bad faith", but that was just
Pot calling Kettle black. Even in the last days of peace, the British and French governments
looked for a way out of war. "Although we cannot in the circumstances avoid declaring war,"
said one British minister, "we can always fulfill the letter of a declaration of war without
immediately going all out." In fact, France and Britain scarcely raised a finger to help Poland
when it was invaded on 1 September 1939. Having brought disaster on itself, the Polish
government fled Warsaw after the first days of fighting, its members crossing into Romania to
be interned.
If France and Britain would not help the Poles in their moment of desperation, could Joseph
Stalin have reasonably calculated that the British and French would have done more to help the
Soviet Union, had it entered the war in September 1939? Clearly not. The USSR would have to
look to its own defences. No one should be surprised therefore that a few months later the
French and Poles in exile would oppose publication of a white paper which could open a
Pandora's box of questions about the origins of the war and their failure to join an anti-Nazi
alliance. Better to let sleeping dogs lie and hope that government archives would not be opened
for a long time.
After the war, the west launched a campaign accusing Stalin of being Hitler's
"ally"
After the war, however, the fiasco surrounding the British white paper was long forgotten.
The sleeping dogs awakened and began to bay. The west launched a campaign accusing Stalin of
being Hitler's "ally". In 1948 the US State Department issued a collection of documents
entitled Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939-1941, to which the Soviet government replied with
Falsifiers of History. The propaganda war was on, as was the western especially American
attempt to attribute to the USSR as much as to Nazi Germany the responsibility for setting off
World War II.
The American propaganda was preposterous given the history of the 1930s as we now know it
from various European archives. Was there ever a gesture of ingratitude greater than US
accusations blaming the USSR for the origins of the war and covering up the huge contribution
of the Red Army to the common victory against Nazi Germany? These days in the west the role of
the Soviet people in destroying Nazism is practically unknown. Few are aware that the Red Army
fought almost alone for three years against the Wehrmacht all the while demanding a second
front in France from its Anglo-American allies. Few know that the Red Army inflicted more than
80% of all casualties on the Wehrmacht and its allies, and that the Soviet people suffered
losses so high that no one knows the exact numbers, though they are estimated at 26 to 27
million civilians and soldiers. Anglo-American losses were trivial by comparison.
Ironically, the anti-Russian campaign to falsify history intensified after the dismemberment
of the USSR in 1991. The Baltic states and Poland led the charge. Like a tail wagging the dog,
they stampeded all too willing European organisations, like the OSCE and PACE and the EU
Parliament in Strasbourg, into ridiculous statements about the origins of World War II. It was
the triumph of ignorance by politicians who knew nothing or who calculated that the few who did
know something about the war, would not be heard. After all, how many people have read the
diplomatic papers in various European archives detailing Soviet efforts to build an anti-Nazi
alliance during the 1930s? How many people would know of the responsibilities of London, Paris,
and Warsaw in obstructing the common European defence against Nazi Germany? "Not many," must
have been the conclusion of European governments. The few historians and informed citizens who
did or do know the truth could easily be shouted down, marginalised or ignored.
Western propaganda claimed that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were "allies". World
War II was entirely their fault, while France, Britain and Poland were innocent victims of
totalitarianism
Thus it was that Hitler and Stalin became accomplices, the two pals and the two
"totalitarians". The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were "allies". World War II was entirely
their fault. France, Britain and Poland were innocent victims of totalitarianism. The OSCE and
PACE issued resolutions to this effect in 2009, declaring 23 August a day of remembrance of the
victims of the Nazi-Soviet "alliance", as if the non-aggression pact signed on that day came
out of the blue and had no context other than totalitarian evil.
In 2014 after the US and EU supported a coup d'état in Kiev, a fascist junta took
power in the Ukraine, and the propaganda campaign to falsify history intensified. Ukrainian
Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera were made into national heroes. The Ukrainian
paramilitary forces, the so-called Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian
Insurgent Army (OUN/UPA), which fought alongside the Wehrmacht and SS, were likewise
transformed into forces of liberation.
After the 2014 putsch, Ukrainian Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera were made into
national heroes
It looked like Poland and the Baltic states had gained an ally for their ugly anti-Russian
campaigns. SS veterans paraded in the Baltic countries, and Polish hooligans vandalised Red
Army graves while the Warsaw government bulldozed memorials to the Soviet liberators of Poland.
Just this autumn Warsaw has attempted to control the thematic messages of a new museum of the
Second World War being opened in Gdansk so that they conform to Polish government propaganda.
The ruling Law and Justice Party wants to make Poland into a noble victim and the main story of
World War II. In fact, Poland was a main story of the 1930s though not in any noble role. It
was a spoiler of European collective security.
In October of this year the Polish and Ukrainian legislative assemblies passed resolutions
vesting responsibility for World War II in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Given Poland's
role in collaborating with Nazi Germany and obstructing Soviet efforts to create an anti-Nazi
alliance in the 1930s, this resolution is surreal. Equally perverse is the Ukrainian equivalent
resolution by a government celebrating Nazi collaboration during World War II.
Ironically, the the Law and Justice Partyhas its own troubles in its "alliance" with fascist
Ukraine. Those Ukrainian collaborators, who fought with the Nazis and committed atrocities
against Soviet citizens, also committed mass murder in Poland during the latter part of the
war. As mightily as Poland seeks to falsify history, it cannot cover up the atrocities of
Ukrainian Nazi collaborators against Poles, remembered in a recently released Polish hit film,
"Volhynia". It looks like a poetic falling out amongst thieves who must bury the history of
Ukrainian fascism and Nazi collaboration in order to unite against the common Russian foe. If
only the numerous Ukrainians now living in southern Poland would stop putting up illegal
monuments to remember Ukrainian Nazi collaborators. The poor Poles are caught between a rock
and hard place. It is equally disagreeable to remember that the Red Army liberated Poland and
stopped the atrocities of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators.
As mightily as Poland seeks to falsify history, it cannot cover up the atrocities of
Ukrainian Nazi collaborators against Poles, remembered in a recently released Polish hit film,
"Volhynia"
Will Russia and Poland finally bury the hatchet to rid themselves of the new wave of
Ukrainian fascists in their midst? This is unlikely. The Polish government also had to choose
in the 1930s between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It chose collaboration with Nazi
Germany and spurned an anti-Nazi alliance with the Soviet Union. No wonder history must be
falsified. There is so much for western governments and Poland to hide. The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags:
World War I World
War II
Little u.s. has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying. Albright
thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. !!! it was worth killings and
maiming.
Over $7 trillion spent while homelessness is rampant. Healthcare is unaffordable for
the 99% of the population.
The u.s. will leave Iraq and Syria aka Saigon 1975 or horizontal. It's over.
Searching for friends. Now, after Russiagate here is little pompous: "we want to be
friends with Russia." Sanctions much excepting we need RD180 engines, seizure of diplomatic
properties. Who are you kidding?
Looks like Iran is Catch22 for the USA: it can destroy it, but only at the cost of losing empire and dollar hegemony...
Notable quotes:
"... The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings 12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own economies? It's an age-old problem. ..."
"... The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight. ..."
"... Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel]. This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it is about the BRI. ..."
"... The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with China shortly before it slid into this current mess. ..."
"... This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time to speed up this development. ..."
"... "Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal agreed between the two countries." ..."
"... "For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas, China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines' process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq." ..."
"... Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous. ..."
"... I'd never thought of that "stationary aircraft carrier" comparison between Israel and the British, very apt. ..."
"... Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at all costs". ..."
"... This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to the Iraqi parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US admitted to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers. ..."
"... This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11. https://www.voltairenet.org/article ..."
"... "The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire." ..."
"... The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US Financial/Political/Military power. ..."
"... In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world. Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the world. ..."
"... the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few entities. ..."
Introduction: After posting Michael Hudson's article "America
Escalates its "Democratic" Oil War in the Near East" on the blog, I decided to ask
Michael to reply to a few follow-up questions. Michael very kindly agreed. Please see our
exchange below.
The Saker
-- -- -
The Saker: Trump has been accused of not thinking forward, of not having a long-term
strategy regarding the consequences of assassinating General Suleimani. Does the United States
in fact have a strategy in the Near East, or is it only ad hoc?
Michael Hudson: Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not
reflect a deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and
exploitative that it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if
they came right out and said it.
President Trump is just the taxicab driver, taking the passengers he has accepted –
Pompeo, Bolton and the Iran-derangement syndrome neocons – wherever they tell him they
want to be driven. They want to pull a heist, and he's being used as the getaway driver (fully
accepting his role). Their plan is to hold onto the main source of their international revenue:
Saudi Arabia and the surrounding Near Eastern oil-export surpluses and money. They see the US
losing its ability to exploit Russia and China, and look to keep Europe under its control by
monopolizing key sectors so that it has the power to use sanctions to squeeze countries that
resist turning over control of their economies and natural rentier monopolies to US buyers. In
short, US strategists would like to do to Europe and the Near East just what they did to Russia
under Yeltsin: turn over public infrastructure, natural resources and the banking system to
U.S. owners, relying on US dollar credit to fund their domestic government spending and private
investment.
This is basically a resource grab. Suleimani was in the same position as Chile's Allende,
Libya's Qaddafi, Iraq's Saddam. The motto is that of Stalin: "No person, no problem."
The Saker: Your answer raises a question about Israel: In your recent article you only
mention Israel twice, and these are only passing comments. Furthermore, you also clearly say
the US Oil lobby as much more crucial than the Israel Lobby, so here is my follow-up question
to you: On what basis have you come to this conclusion and how powerful do you believe the
Israel Lobby to be compared to, say, the Oil lobby or the US Military-Industrial Complex? To
what degree do their interests coincide and to what degree to they differ?
Michael Hudson: I wrote my article to explain the most basic concerns of U.S. international
diplomacy: the balance of payments (dollarizing the global economy, basing foreign central bank
savings on loans to the U.S. Treasury to finance the military spending mainly responsible for
the international and domestic budget deficit), oil (and the enormous revenue produced by the
international oil trade), and recruitment of foreign fighters (given the impossibility of
drafting domestic U.S. soldiers in sufficient numbers). From the time these concerns became
critical to today, Israel was viewed as a U.S. military base and supporter, but the U.S. policy
was formulated independently of Israel.
I remember one day in 1973 or '74 I was traveling with my Hudson Institute colleague Uzi
Arad (later a head of Mossad and advisor to Netanyahu) to Asia, stopping off in San Francisco.
At a quasi-party, a U.S. general came up to Uzi and clapped him on the shoulder and said,
"You're our landed aircraft carrier in the Near East," and expressed his friendship.
Uzi was rather embarrassed. But that's how the U.S. military thought of Israel back then. By
that time the three planks of U.S. foreign policy strategy that I outlined were already firmly
in place.
Of course Netanyahu has applauded U.S. moves to break up Syria, and Trump's assassination
choice. But the move is a U.S. move, and it's the U.S. that is acting on behalf of the dollar
standard, oil power and mobilizing Saudi Arabia's Wahabi army.
Israel fits into the U.S.-structured global diplomacy much like Turkey does. They and other
countries act opportunistically within the context set by U.S. diplomacy to pursue their own
policies. Obviously Israel wants to secure the Golan Heights; hence its opposition to Syria,
and also its fight with Lebanon; hence, its opposition to Iran as the backer of Assad and
Hezbollah. This dovetails with US policy.
But when it comes to the global and U.S. domestic response, it's the United States that is
the determining active force. And its concern rests above all with protecting its cash cow of
Saudi Arabia, as well as working with the Saudi jihadis to destabilize governments whose
foreign policy is independent of U.S. direction – from Syria to Russia (Wahabis in
Chechnya) to China (Wahabis in the western Uighur region). The Saudis provide the underpinning
for U.S. dollarization (by recycling their oil revenues into U.S. financial investments and
arms purchases), and also by providing and organizing the ISIS terrorists and coordinating
their destruction with U.S. objectives. Both the Oil lobby and the Military-Industrial Complex
obtain huge economic benefits from the Saudis.
Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about.
The Saker: In your recent article you wrote: " The assassination was intended to escalate
America's presence in Iraq to keep control the region's oil reserves ." Others believe that
the goal was precisely the opposite, to get a pretext to remove the US forces from both Iraq
and Syria. What are your grounds to believe that your hypothesis is the most likely one?
Michael Hudson: Why would killing Suleimani help remove the U.S. presence? He was the
leader of the fight against ISIS, especially in Syria. US policy was to continue using ISIS to
permanently destabilize Syria and Iraq so as to prevent a Shi'ite crescent reaching from Iran
to Lebanon – which incidentally would serve as part of China's Belt and Road initiative.
So it killed Suleimani to prevent the peace negotiation. He was killed because he had been
invited by Iraq's government to help mediate a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That was what the United States feared most of all, because it effectively would prevent its
control of the region and Trump's drive to seize Iraqi and Syrian oil.
So using the usual Orwellian doublethink, Suleimani was accused of being a terrorist, and
assassinated under the U.S. 2002 military Authorization Bill giving the President to move
without Congressional approval against Al Qaeda. Trump used it to protect Al Qaeda's
terrorist ISIS offshoots.
Given my three planks of U.S. diplomacy described above, the United States must remain in
the Near East to hold onto Saudi Arabia and try to make Iraq and Syria client states equally
subservient to U.S. balance-of-payments and oil policy.
Certainly the Saudis must realize that as the buttress of U.S. aggression and terrorism in
the Near East, their country (and oil reserves) are the most obvious target to speed the
parting guest. I suspect that this is why they are seeking a rapprochement with Iran. And I
think it is destined to come about, at least to provide breathing room and remove the threat.
The Iranian missiles to Iraq were a demonstration of how easy it would be to aim them at Saudi
oil fields. What then would be Aramco's stock market valuation?
The Saker: In your article you wrote: " The major deficit in the U.S. balance of payments
has long been military spending abroad. The entire payments deficit, beginning with the Korean
War in 1950-51 and extending through the Vietnam War of the 1960s, was responsible for forcing
the dollar off gold in 1971. The problem facing America's military strategists was how to
continue supporting the 800 U.S. military bases around the world and allied troop support
without losing America's financial leverage. " I want to ask a basic, really primitive
question in this regard: how cares about the balance of payments as long as 1) the US continues
to print money 2) most of the world will still want dollars. Does that not give the US an
essentially "infinite" budget? What is the flaw in this logic?
Michael Hudson: The U.S. Treasury can create dollars to spend at home, and the Fed can
increase the banking system's ability to create dollar credit and pay debts denominated in US
dollars. But they cannot create foreign currency to pay other countries, unless they willingly
accept dollars ad infinitum – and that entails bearing the costs of financing the U.S.
balance-of-payments deficit, getting only IOUs in exchange for real resources that they sell to
U.S. buyers.
This is the situation that arose half a century ago. The United States could print dollars
in 1971, but it could not print gold.
In the 1920s, Germany's Reichsbank could print deutsche marks – trillions of them.
When it came to pay Germany's foreign reparations debt, all it could do was to throw these
D-marks onto the foreign exchange market. That crashed the currency's exchange rate, forcing up
the price of imports proportionally and causing the German hyperinflation.
The question is, how many surplus dollars do foreign governments want to hold. Supporting
the dollar standard ends up supporting U.S. foreign diplomacy and military policy. For the
first time since World War II, the most rapidly growing parts of the world are seeking to
de-dollarize their economies by reducing reliance on U.S. exports, U.S. investment, and U.S.
bank loans. This move is creating an alternative to the dollar, likely to replace it with
groups of other currencies and assets in national financial reserves.
The Saker: In the same article you also write: " So maintaining the dollar as the world's
reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. " We often hear people say
that the dollar is about to tank and that as soon as that happens, then the US economy (and,
according to some, the EU economy too) will collapse. In the intelligence community there is
something called tracking the "indicators and warnings". My question to you is: what are the
economic "indicators and warnings" of a possible (probable?) collapse of the US dollar followed
by a collapse of the financial markets most tied to the Dollar? What shall people like myself
(I am an economic ignoramus) keep an eye on and look for?
Michael Hudson: What is most likely is a slow decline, largely from debt deflation
and cutbacks in social spending, in the Eurozone and US economies. Of course, the decline will
force the more highly debt-leveraged companies to miss their bond payments and drive them into
insolvency. That is the fate of Thatcherized economies. But it will be long and painfully drawn
out, largely because there is little left-wing socialist alternative to neoliberalism at
present.
Trump's protectionist policies and sanctions are forcing other countries to become
self-reliant and independent of US suppliers, from farm crops to airplanes and military arms,
against the US threat of a cutoff or sanctions against repairs, spare parts and servicing.
Sanctioning Russian agriculture has helped it become a major crop exporter, and to become much
more independent in vegetables, dairy and cheese products. The US has little to offer
industrially, especially given the fact that its IT communications are stuffed with US
spyware.
Europe therefore is facing increasing pressure from its business sector to choose the non-US
economic alliance that is growing more rapidly and offers a more profitable investment market
and more secure trade supplier. Countries will turn as much as possible (diplomatically as well
as financially and economically) to non-US suppliers because the United States is not reliable,
and because it is being shrunk by the neoliberal policies supported by Trump and the Democrats
alike. A byproduct probably will be a continued move toward gold as an alternative do the
dollar in settling balance-of-payments deficits.
The Saker: Finally, my last question: which country out there do you see as the most capable
foe of the current US-imposed international political and economic world order? whom do you
believe that US Deep State and the Neocons fear most? China? Russia? Iran? some other country?
How would you compare them and on the basis of what criteria?
Michael Hudson: The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States
itself. That is Trump's major contribution. He is uniting the world in a move toward
multi-centrism much more than any ostensibly anti-American could have done. And he is doing it
all in the name of American patriotism and nationalism – the ultimate Orwellian
rhetorical wrapping!
Trump has driven Russia and China together with the other members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), including Iran as observer. His demand that NATO join in US oil
grabs and its supportive terrorism in the Near East and military confrontation with Russia in
Ukraine and elsewhere probably will lead to European "Ami go home" demonstrations against NATO
and America's threat of World War III.
No single country can counter the U.S. unipolar world order. It takes a critical mass of
countries. This already is taking place among the countries that you list above. They are
simply acting in their own common interest, using their own mutual currencies for trade and
investment. The effect is an alternative multilateral currency and trading area.
The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice
their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are
beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew
from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings
12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own
house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US
unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own
economies? It's an age-old problem.
The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another
currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other
countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight.
The Saker: I thank you very much for your time and answers!
Another one that absolutely stands for me out is the below link to a recent interview of
Hussein Askary.
As I wrote a few days ago IMO this too is a wonderful insight into the utterly complicated
dynamics of the tinderbox that the situation in Iran and Iraq has become.
Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel].
This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it
is about the BRI.
The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with
China shortly before it slid into this current mess.
This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used
directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would
help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A
key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time
to speed up this development.
In essence, this would enable the direct and efficient linking of Iraq into the BRI
project. Going forward the economic gains and the political stability that could come out of
this would be a completely new paradigm in the recovery of Iraq both economically and
politically. Iraq is essential for a major part of the dynamics of the BRI because of its
strategic location and the fact that it could form a major hub in the overall network.
It absolutely goes without saying that the AAA would do everything the could to wreck this
plan. This is their playbook and is exactly what they have done. The moronic and
extraordinarily impulsive Trump subsequently was easily duped into being a willing and
idiotic accomplice in this plan.
The positive in all of this is that this whole scheme will backfire spectacularly for the
perpetrators and will more than likely now speed up the whole process in getting Iraq back on
track and working towards stability and prosperity.
Please don't anyone try to claim that Trump is part of any grand plan nothing could be
further from the truth he is nothing more than a bludgeoning imbecile foundering around,
lashing out impulsively indiscriminately. He is completely oblivious and ignorant as to the
real picture.
I urge everyone involved in this Saker site to put aside an hour and to listen very
carefully to Askary's insights. This is extremely important and could bring more clarity to
understanding the situation than just about everything else you have read put together. There
is hope, and Askary highlights the huge stakes that both Russia and China have in the
region.
This is a no brainer. This is the time for both Russia and China to act and to decisively.
They must cooperate in assisting both Iraq and Iran to extract themselves from the current
quagmire the one that the vicious Hegemon so cruelly and thoughtlessly tossed them into.
Also interesting is what Simon Watkins reports in his recent article entitled "Is Iraq About
To Become A Chinese Client State?"
To quote from the article:
"Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal
agreed between the two countries."
and
"For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been
told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and
Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that
central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas,
China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and
build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from
Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as
those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines'
process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to
use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq."
and
"The second key announcement in this vein made last week from Iraq was that the Oil
Ministry has completed the pre-qualifying process for companies interested in participating
in the Iraqi-Jordanian oil pipeline project. The U$5 billion pipeline is aimed at carrying
oil produced from the Rumaila oilfield in Iraq's Basra Governorate to the Jordanian port of
Aqaba, with the first phase of the project comprising the installation of a
700-kilometre-long pipeline with a capacity of 2.25 million bpd within the Iraqi territories
(Rumaila-Haditha). The second phase includes installing a 900-kilometre pipeline in Jordan
between Haditha and Aqaba with a capacity of 1 million bpd. Iraq's Oil Minister – for
the time being, at least – Thamir Ghadhban added that the Ministry has formed a team to
prepare legal contracts, address financial issues and oversee technical standards for
implementing the project, and that May will be the final month in which offers for the
project from the qualified companies will be accepted and that the winners will be announced
before the end of this year. Around 150,000 barrels of the oil from Iraq would be used for
Jordan's domestic needs, whilst the remainder would be exported through Aqaba to various
destinations, generating about US$3 billion a year in revenues to Jordan, with the rest going
to Iraq. Given that the contractors will be expected to front-load all of the financing for
the projects associated with this pipeline, Baghdad expects that such tender offers will be
dominated by Chinese and Russian companies, according to the Iran and Iraq source."
Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and
alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the
military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle
east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous.
They will not sacrifice the
(free) oil until booted out by a coalition of Arab countries threatening to over run them and
that is why the dollar hegemonys death will be slow, long and drawn out and they will do
anything, any dirty trick in the book, to prevent Arab/Persian unity. Unlike many peoples
obsession with Israel and how important they feel themselves to be I think Hudson is correct
again. They are the middle eastern version of the British – a stationary aircraft
carrier who will allow themselves to be used and abused whilst living under the illusion they
are major players. They aren't. They're bit part players in decline, subservient to the great
dollar and oil pyramid scheme that keeps America afloat. If you want to beat America you have
to understand the big scheme, that and the utter insanity that backs it up. It is that
insanity of the leites, the inability to allow themselves to be 'beaten' that will keep
nuclear exchange as a real possibility over the next 10 to 15 years. Unification is the only
thing that can stop it and trying to unite so many disparate countries (as the Russians are
trying to do despite multiple provocations) is where the future lies and why it will take so
long. It is truly breath taking in such a horrific way, as Hudson mentions, that to allow the
world to see its 'masters of the universe' pogram to be revealed:
"Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not reflect a
deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and exploitative that
it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if they came right
out and said it."
Would be to allow it to be undermined at home and abroad. God help us all.
Clever would be a better word. Looking at my world globe, I see Italy, Greece, and Turkey on
that end of the Mediterranean. Turkey has been in NATO since 1952. Crete and Cyprus are also
right there. Doesn't Hudson own a globe or regional map?
That a US Admiral would be gushing about the Apartheid state 7 years after the attempted
destruction of the USS Liberty is painful to consider. I'd like to disbelieve the story, but
it's quite likely there were a number of high-ranking ***holes in a Naval Uniform.
The world situation reminds us of the timeless fable by Aesop of The North Wind and the Sun.
Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far
removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at
all costs".
Perhaps the most potent weapon Iran or anyone else has at this critical juncture, is not
missiles, but diplomacy.
"Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about."
Thank you for saying this sir. In the US and around the world many people become
obsessively fixated in seeing a "jew" or zionist behind every bush. Now the Zionists are
certinly an evil, blood thirsty bunch, and certainly deserve the scorn of the world, but i
feel its a cop out sometimes. A person from the US has a hard time stomaching the actions of
their country, so they just hoist all the unpleasentries on to the zionists. They put it all
on zionisim, and completly fail to mention imperialism. I always switced back and forth on
the topic my self. But i cant see how a beachead like the zionist state, a stationary
carrier, can be bigger than the empire itself. Just look at the major leaders in the
resistance groups, the US was always seen as the ultimate obstruction, while israel was seen
as a regional obstruction. Like sayyed hassan nasrallah said in his recent speech about the
martyrs, that if the US is kicked out, the Israelis might just run away with out even
fighting. I hate it when people say "we are in the middle east for israel" when it can easily
be said that "israel is still in the mid east because of the US." If the US seized to exist
today, israel would fall rather quickly. If israel fell today the US would still continue
being an imperalist, bloodthirsty entity.
The Deeper Story behind the Assassination of Soleimani
This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to
the Iraqi
parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US
admitted
to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers.
This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the
Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article
I wish the Saker had asked Mr Hudson about some crucial recent events to get his opinion
with regards to US foreign policy. Specifically, how does the emergence of cryptocurrency
relate to dollar finance and the US grand strategy? A helpful tool for the hegemon or the
emergence of a new currency that prevents unlimited currency printing? Finally, what is
global warming and the associated carbon credit system? The next planned model of continuing
global domination and balance of payments? Or true organic attempt at fair energy production
and management?
With all due respect, these are huge questions in themselves and perhaps could to be
addressed in separate interviews.
IMO it doesn't always work that well to try to cover too much ground in just one giant
leap.
I have never understood the Cebrowski doctrine. How does the destruction of Middle Eastern state structures allow the US to control Middle
East Oil? The level of chaos generated by such an act would seem to prevent anyone from controlled
the oil.
Dr. Hudson often appears on RT's "Keiser Report" where he covers many contemporary topics
with its host Max Keiser. Many of the shows transcripts are available at Hudson's website . Indeed, after the two Saker items,
you'll find three programs on the first page. Using the search function at his site, you'll
find the two articles he's written that deal with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, although I
think he's been more specific in the TV interviews.
As for this Q&A, its an A+. Hudson's 100% correct to playdown the Zionist influence
given the longstanding nature of the Outlaw US Empire's methods that began well before the
rise of the Zionist Lobby, which in reality is a recycling of aid dollars back to Congress in
the form of bribes.
Nils: Good Article. The spirit of Nihilism.
Quote from Neocon Michael Ladeen.
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear
down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and
cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and
creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their
inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do
not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very
existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack
us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
@NILS As far as crypto currency goes it is a brilliant idea in concept. But since during the
Bush years we have been shown multiple times, who actually owns [and therefore controls] the
internet. Many times now we have also been informed that through the monitoring capability's
of our defense agency's, they are recording every key stroke. IMO, with the flip of a switch,
we can shut down the internet. At the very least, that would stop us from being able to trade
in crypto, but they have e-files on each of us. They know our passwords, or can easily access
them. That does not give me confidence in e=currency during a teotwawki situation.
One thing that troubles me about the petrodollar thesis is that ANNUAL trade in oil is about
2 trillion DAILY trade in $US is 4 trillion. I can well believe the US thinks oil is the
bedrock if dollar hegemony but is it? I see no alternative to US dollar hegemony.
The lines that really got my attention were these:
"The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That
is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that
other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire."
That is so completely true. I have wondered why – to date – there had not been
more movement by Europe away from the United States. But while reading the article the
following occurred to me. Maybe Europe is awaiting the next U.S. election. Maybe they hope
that a new president (someone like Biden) might allow Europe to keep more of the
"spoils."
If that is true, then a re-election of Trump will probably send Europe fleeing for the
exits. The Europeans will be cutting deals with Russia and China like the store is on
fire.
The critical player in forming the EU WAS/IS the US financial Elites. Yes, they had many
ultra powerful Europeans, especially Germany, but it was the US who initiated the EU.
Purpose? For the US Financial Powerhouses & US politicians to "take Europe captive."
Notice the similarities: the EU has its Central Bank who communicates with the private
Banksters of the FED. Much austerity has ensued, especially in Southern nations: Greece,
Italy, etc. Purpose: to smash unions, worker's pay, eliminate unions, and basically allowing
US/EU Financial capital to buy out Italy, most of Greece, and a goodly section of Spain and
Portugal.
The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as
separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US
Financial/Political/Military power.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this but it sounds like he is saying that the U.S.
has a payment deficit problem which is solved by stealing the world's oil supplies. To do
this they must have a powerful, expensive military. But it is primarily this military which
is the main cause of the balance deficit. So it is an eternally fuelled problem and solution.
If I understand this, what it actually means is that we all live on a plantation as slaves
and everything that is happening is for the benefit of the few wealthy billionaires. And they
intend to turn the entire world into their plantation of slaves. They may even let you live
for a while longer.
I didn't know this until I read a history of World War I.
As you know, World War One was irresolvable, murderous, bloody trench warfare. People
would charge out of the trenches trying to overrun enemy positions only to be cutdown by the
super weapon of the day – the machine gun. It was an unending bloody stalemate until
the development of the tank. Tanks were immune to machine gun fire coming from the trenches
and could overrun enemy positions. In the aftermath of that war, it became apparently that
mechanization had become crucial to military supremacy. In turn, fuel was crucial to
mechanization. Accordingly, in the Sykes Picot agreement France and Britain divided a large
amount of Middle Eastern oil between themselves in order to assure military dominance. (The
United States had plenty of their own oil at that time.)
In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of
world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world.
Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the
world.
That is one third of the story. The second third is this.
Up till 1971, the United States dollar was the most trusted currency in the world. The
dollar was backed by gold and lots and lots of it. Dollars were in fact redeemable in gold.
However, due to Vietnam War, the United States started running huge balance of payments
deficits. Other countries – most notably France under De Gaulle – started cashing
in dollars in exchange for that gold. Gold started flooding out of the United States. At that
point Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard. Basically stating that the
dollar was no longer backed by gold and dollars could not be redeemed for gold. That caused
an international payments problem. People would no longer accept dollars as payment since the
dollar was not backed up by anything. The American economy was in big trouble since they were
running deficits and people would no longer take dollars on faith.
To fix the problem, Henry Kissinger convinced the Saudis to agree to only accept dollars
in payment for oil – no matter who was the buyer. That meant that nations throughout
the world now needed dollars in order to pay for their energy needs. Due to this, the dollars
was once again the most important currency in the world since – as noted above –
energy underlies everything in modern industrial cultures. Additionally, since dollars were
now needed throughout the world, it became common to make all trades for any product in
highly valued dollars. Everyone needed dollars for every thing, oil or not.
At that point, the United States could go on printing dollars and spending them since a
growing world economy needed more and more dollars to buy oil as well as to trade everything
else.
That leads to the third part of the story. In order to convince the Saudis to accept only
dollars in payments for oil (and to have the Saudis strong arm other oil producers to do the
same) Kissinger promised to protect the brutal Saudi regime's hold on power against a restive
citizenry and also to protect the Saudi's against other nations. Additionally, Kissinger made
an implicit threat that if the Saudi's did not agree, the US would come in and just take
their oil. The Saudis agreed.
Thus, the three keys to dominance in the modern world are thus: oil, dollars and the
military.
Thus, Hudson ties in the three threads in his interview above. Oil, Dollars, Military.
That is what holds the empire together.
Thank you for thinking through this. Yes, the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the
absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the
US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few
entities.
I should make one note only to this. That "no man, no problem" was Stalin's motto is a myth.
He never said that. It was invented by a writer Alexei Rybnikov and inserted in his book "The
Children of Arbat".
Wow! Absolutely beautiful summation of the ultimate causes that got us where we are and, if
left intact, will get us to where we're going!
So, the dreamer says: If only we could throw-off our us-vs-them BS political-economic
ideology & religious doctrine-faith issues, put them into live-and-let-live mode, and see
that we are all just humans fighting over this oil resource to which our modern economy (way
of life) is addicted, then we might be able to hammer out some new rules for interacting, for
running an earth-resource sustainable and fair global economy We do at least have the
technology to leave behind our oil addiction, but the political-economic will still is
lacking. How much more of the current insanity must we have before we get that will? Will we
get it before it's too late?
Only if we, a sufficient majority from the lowest economic classes to the top elites and
throughout all nations, are able to psychologically-spiritually internalize the two
principles of Common Humanity and Spaceship Earth soon enough, will we stop our current slide
off the cliff into modern economic collapse and avert all the pain and suffering that's
already now with us and that will intensify.
The realist says we're not going to stop that slide and it's the only way we're going to
learn, if we are indeed ever going to learn.
Thank you for this excellent interview. You ask the kind of questions that we would all like
to ask. It's regrettable that Chalmers Johnson isn't still alive. I believe that you and he
would have a lot in common.
Naxos has produced an incredible, unabridged cd audiobook of
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. One of Gibbon's observations really resonates
today: "Assassination is the last resource of cowards". Thanks again.
For MI6 this level of detachment from reality is stunning
Notable quotes:
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
That shed some light on the common origin of MH17, Russiagate and Scripal propaganda campaigns connecting all three with British
government's psy-op operation called The ' Integrity Initiative ' which builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists,
military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when
the British center perceives a need.
And among others participants, William Browder is listed too:
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core
cluster also includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council shill Ben Nimmo and
the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person of interest is Andrew Wood who handed the Steele
'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called
journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus of the
BBC.
Here is one interesting comment from MoA:
Anya, Nov 24, 2018 11:57:00 AM
The British government has been running a serious meddling into the US affairs:
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from
publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed
on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed
Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6
double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to
sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran.
Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam
Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy
in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the
conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an
act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We
should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump
administration. Iran has already
promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and
announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation
from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of
all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial
thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.
#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force
– a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style
operations throughout the Middle East, and which is
described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump
celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an
end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning
"imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."
But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and
fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and
propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades.
Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence
and
international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was
developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.
Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and
the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after
Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared
there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military
officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times
reports :
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most
powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they
viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they
presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents
to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
"Top pentagon officials," the Times
reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that
"the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in
the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's
deliberations. According to that
source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against
American targets outside U.S. borders.
U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information
to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this
president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw
attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly
desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian
who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in
pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.
Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the
President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify
war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding
Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and
Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions ,
based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of
terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they
knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the
murder of more than
1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi
state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of
beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to
seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable
intelligence.
#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring
U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy
represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood
as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed
into this misrepresentation when he
described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of
U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S.
soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019
statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its
responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to
2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.
As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse.
U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation,
which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of
aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's
prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization
(which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense
against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion).
Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the
deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that
domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties
to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of
self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was
conducting an illegal occupation.
#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East
The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that
escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every
major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while
fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support
for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical
Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11,
2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further
deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a
civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.
With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of
the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled
numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass
instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across
both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar
Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS
affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently
admitted
the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's
overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.
All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the
countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and
destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest
in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals,
who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.
The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers:
U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become
increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by
the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all,
when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one
of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of
extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This
point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how
propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on
Terrorism."
Where Do We Go From Here?
Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement
that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran
strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk
this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a
war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early
days of his presidency.
War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader,
while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification
of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.
The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to
consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only
make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing
the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of
experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror
threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest
provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on
Iran as a violation of national and international law.
To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:
The unique, really exceptional feature of the USA is that it does not try to hide idiocy of
its leaders and lack of education and interest in knowing the truth of the majority of
population
A new poll has found that Americans doubt Donald Trump has a clear Iran policy, but
nonetheless they support the decision to kill Qassem Soleimani – who, remarkably, had
been an unknown entity for the majority of respondents.
Forty-three percent of Americans said they approved of the US drone strike that killed the
Iranian commander last week in Baghdad, while 38% disapproved and 19% said they were unsure,
according to the results
of a HuffPost/YouGov survey.
And while almost half the country backs Soleimani's assassination, 60% of Americans conceded
that they had never heard of the Quds Force commander before last week. An additional 14% said
they weren't sure if they had known about him before the strike.
Is there a chorus of politicians singing in there about how lazy they are, and how they
never bothered to verify Browder' story? The story is indeed remarkable, but not in the way
that first appears.
Stephen Fry / @stephenfry
You may or may not know the remarkable story of @Billbrowder and the #MagnitskyAct - find
out the startling truth by listening to
#MagnitskytheMusical by the wondrous @JohnnyFlynnHQ & @roberthudson - @BBCRadio3 7.30 Sun
12th Jan
Book and lyrics by Robert Hudson
Music and lyrics by Johnny Flynn
12 January 2020
О 1 hour, 34 minutes
Johnny Flynn and Robert Hudson bring us a musical based on the
incredible story of an American venture capitalist, a Russian tax
advisor, a crazy heist, the Trump Tower meeting and the very rule of
law.
Blending music and satire, the story explores the truths and fictions
surrounding the origins and aftershocks of the Magnitsky Act; global
legislation which allows governments to sanction those who they see
as offenders of human rights.
It tells the story of a tax adviser's struggle to uncover a huge tax
fraud, his imprisonment by the very authorities he is investigating,
and the American financier's crusade for justice.
Johnny Flynn, Paul Chahidi and members of the cast perform songs in
a epic story that explores democracy, corruption, and how we
undervalue the law at our peril.
Bill Paul Chahidi Sergei Johnny Flynn Jamie Fenella
Woolgar Natalia Ellie Kendrick Kuznetsov Gus Brown Guard Clive Hayward Silchenko Ian
Conningham Jared Will Kirk Fisherman Neil McCaul Judge Jessica Turner
Additional singing by Sinead Maclnnes, Laura Christy, Scarlett
Courtney and Lucy Reynolds.
The cellist is Joe Zeitlin. Sound is by Peter Ringrose.
Directed by Sasha Yevtushenko.
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the
biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American,
we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without
hesitation!
shoe 9:18 PM - 4 Jan 2020
fuck healthcare, fuck our veterans, fuck our crumbling infrastructure, fuck the homless
MOMMY MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEEDS MORE MONEY HELL YEAH
I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe
beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian
actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. You can at least understand
(even if you critique) a US preoccupation with Cuba over the years, or drug cartels in
central America, or economic refugees in Mexico because they are close by and have a more
less direct effect on the stability of the US. But they have no authority beyond that other
than the ability to project violence and force. That's just simple imperialism. But now the
US have whacked a made guy without any real reason (i.e. looking at you the wrong way is not
a reason). Any mafia hood knows that, especially a New Yorker like Trump. So the climax of
The Godfather comes to mind. It is staggeringly naive and frankly moronic to think
that this is about good and evil. I bet Soleimani was no angel, but he wasn't whacked because
he was a bad guy, but because he was extraordinarily effective military organizer. Star Wars
has a lot to answer for in stunting the historical sensibilities of entire generations, but
its underlying narrative is the only MSM playbook now. Even more staggering is the stupendous
arrogance of the US belief in its 'rights' (based on thuggery and avarice), as though it were
the only power in the world capable of establishing a moral order. The lesson in humility to
come will be both long-awaited and go unheeded. Even the mob understand there has to be
rules.
After reading Crooke and Federicci's articles, there is only one way to stop this madness
blowing into a global conflict. Russia and China need to get involved whether they like it or
not. Diplomacy and sideline analysis has run its course. This is their time to stamp their
influence in the region and finish off the empire once and for all. Maybe that way, The
Europeans will grow some minerals and become sovereign again.
Otherwise, China can kiss its Belt and Road goodbye and go into a recession with the loss
of their investments up to this point and become slaves to the Americans again.
And Russia, the enemy du jour of Europe and US will be next and be crushed under economic
sanctions and isolation.
This is the moment that stars are aligned . Russia and China should park their battle
carriers off the Gulf and gives direct warning to Israel and US that any nuclear threat ,
tactical or otherwise, against anyone in the region is a non-starter.
I read so much about these two countries and that they will get involved. I have recited
those lines myself. But after these events and how things are escalating, I cannot see how
they cannot be involved. US is its most vulnerable and weakest with respect to economic,
diplomatic and military conditions.
The time of condemnations, letters of objection to the UN and veto votes in UNSC is over.
There is only one way to deal with a rogue nation and that is by force.
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem
Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the
Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and
maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.
"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States
coexisted in Iraq," he said.
Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as
anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."
"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in
Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in
Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani
was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He
stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the
Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the
Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the
game have totally changed," he said.
AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the
timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to
discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to
deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to
Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the
significance of this.
GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani
came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in
the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year
had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as
a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place
Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and
fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an
American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel
Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.
So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will
be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know,
Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of
Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's
reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian
perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't
think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think
Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think
is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle
ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American
troops from the country.
And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in
which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as
journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each
other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or
counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American
airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That
coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or
Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem
Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad
airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He
took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in
the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans
and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would
have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have
totally changed.
So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I
don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the
assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes
Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of
these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a
force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a
war between Iran and the United States.
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he
himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations
with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable
offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani
by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the
mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was
in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial
flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in
Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit
the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside
the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases
where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this
will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to
decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories
of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would
be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President
Pence. Might have to get use to that.
Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of
Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.
There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.
Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13
1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late
1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions
annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion
control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control
Act.<<
2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a
bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?
Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed.
Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good
argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop
digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.
Pelosi hailed the killing just after news broke of Gaddafi's October 2011 death.
She released the following
statement
on her
Congressional website:
Today's news marks the next phase of Libya's march toward democracy. After decades of tyrannical rule in Libya,
the world is hopeful that the next generation of Libyan leaders will bring their country out of this dark chapter.
The strong action taken by the United States, led by President Obama, and NATO, the United Nations and the Arab
League proves the power of the world community working together.
"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses
diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him
and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."
To some extent it is not relevant if Trump was lying during his campaign, or has been
corrupted/coopted/fooled/pressured/played for a chump by the establishment. He said one thing
and is doing another: that's the bottom line.
However: I note that after Barack Obama got elected, he immediately fired all of his
populist advisors and hired Wall Streeters even before being sworn in. Obama was clearly
lying up front.
Trump, however, initially did start moving in the direction he said he would, he kept his
populist/nationalist advisors, and really did make actual moves to carry out his campaign
promises. And the establishment went total nut job, he was a Russian agent, his populist
advisers were targeted for legal actions, they were replaced with establishment advisors who
hate him Trump was strong on stage berating a political opponent, but against establishment
pressure he has turned out to be weak, caving in to "the Blob" at every turn.
Had she been elected, Hillary would already have started the neocon wet dream of a war
with Iran.
While that may be true, I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would
have been worse. Being relatively less evil, or a different incarnation of evil, is still
evil.
Frankly, impeachment was just a distraction to divert attention from the real play. The
dagger at his throat is from far more malevolent foes who can wield both blackmail or death
as the circumstances demand to get their way. The jewish mafia is far more dangerous than the
Sicilian boys could ever hope to be. The latter learned from the former.
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation
in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.
The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because
the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic
fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that
everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.
Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.
Things are not true because a government official says them.
I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians
do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government
officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat")
and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever
really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts
say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact
that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations
in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official
said them. [UPDATE: here's an example
from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]
In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:
"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September
11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."
It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says
Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence,
because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent
attacks.
To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National
Review defends
Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission
report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report
does indeed say that Iran allowed free
travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot,
however, rather crucially
says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi
admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence
did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.
Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary
for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive
power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular
Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might
have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.
There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically
allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll
conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if
it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.
This brings us to #2:
Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering
Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure
coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however,
possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of
mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)
Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet
I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the
duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan,
for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether
Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that
would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.
There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan
Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think
lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking
it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry
that becomes ubiquitous:
I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good
that Osama bin Laden was alive?
I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers
die?
I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should
be allowed to operate with impunity.
I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America.
Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion
can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost
impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed
the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho
Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should
have been tortured and you hated America.
"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC).
Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony
says there is something wrong with those who
do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our
enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place
the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a
decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)
Scrutinize the arguments
Here's Mike Pence again:
"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi
insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members,
along with thousands of wounded."
I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just
discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything
about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is
automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many
nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths,
George H.W. Bush said
that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was
irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder
of Iranian civilians.
One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor,
and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those
soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country.
Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these
acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without
an examination of whether the United States was in the right.
We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made.
Here 's the Atlantic 's
George Packer on the execution:
"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon
and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost
of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with
military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."
The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell
on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad
would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments
who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?
He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to
say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.
Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't
follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a
war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush.
But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent
attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous
past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.
It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent
populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.
Keep the focus on what matters
"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." --
The Atlantic
"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified,
but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times
"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" --
Elizabeth Warren
They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you
find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you
are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This
is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether
they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people
of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether
things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting
the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder"
essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.
There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed
the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is
correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things
like :
"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to
Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."
In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other
hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly
nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get
you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)
Emphasis matters
Consider three statements:
"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no
question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans
and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we
are prepared for the consequences."
"Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless
move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority
must be to avoid another costly war."
"When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the
region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500
brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings
us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised
to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is
consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a
"threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this
was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is
vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that
unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.
We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky.
If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening
person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren,
while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he
got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse.
He puts the emphasis where it matters.
I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people ,
but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar
statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that
he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In
a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make
needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.
Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.
If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is
to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would
it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the
head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the
Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality
requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the
full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.
Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the
Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the
CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because
terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to
actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude
and irrational so much propaganda is.
"It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
"That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general."
-- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"
Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of
the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions.
If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.
Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians."
They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying
their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization
program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent
Bolivian coup how easy it is
to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous
regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of
their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.
Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United
States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit
that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and
dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization
." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt
by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to
call torture torture when Bush did it.)
Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country
to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.
Remember what people were saying five minutes ago
Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much
you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered
their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.
During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World
War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War
II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.
Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing
unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our
civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will
then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to "
stop a war ." It will then
want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad,
with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and
those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran
relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want
you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting
propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."
Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.
"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro
They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells
you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong,
but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says
the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your
independent judgment.
This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam
Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things
as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam
or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.
What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated
as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself
think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that
your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop
a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles
). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the
killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to
Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression
created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries
multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed
around the world; an
interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the
closure of diplomatic pathways to containing
Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament
voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of
constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.
But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation
on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President
Trump undertook."
Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon
officials were willing to countenance such an operation.
For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased
tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted
to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.
How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On
Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah
militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that
mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and
injuring service members.
On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials
presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.
One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same
class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed
the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official
who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his
predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state
and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."
Mattis declined to comment.
In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the
public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never
gives an inch," an administration official said.
But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that
"dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.
Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat
posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.
When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they
had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.
Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he
make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.
Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike
himself.
"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now
that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.
Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly
reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated
the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.
"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.
Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even
though they were never consulted on the decision.
"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.
"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal.
On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research
and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original
signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.
"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.
Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did --
what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.
Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising
Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.
Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence
service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and
the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."
Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice
in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them
into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say
that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the
operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the
conversations said.
Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading
the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.
At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular
among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.
After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering
efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.
At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above
other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If
it's not, good luck."
Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle
East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente,
one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions
against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump's no-new-war
pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship
with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the
expressed needs of Israel's belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump bears full responsibility for what comes next. The neoconservatives and Israelis are
predictably cheering the result, with Mark Dubowitz of the pro-Israel Foundation for Defense of
Democracies
enthusing that it is "bigger than bin Laden a massive blow to the [Iranian] regime."
Dubowitz, whose credentials as an "Iran expert" are dubious at best, is at least somewhat right
in this case. Qassem Suleimani is, to be sure, charismatic and also very popular in Iran. He is
Iran's most powerful military figure in the entire region, being the principal contact for
proxies and allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. But what Dubowitz does not understand is that no
one in a military hierarchy is irreplaceable. Suleimani's aides and high officials in the
intelligence ministry are certainly more than capable of picking up his mantle and continuing
his policies.
In reality, the series of foolish attacks initiated by the United States over the past week
will only hasten the departure of much of the U.S. military from the region. The Pentagon and
White House have been insisting that Iran was behind an alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a
U.S. installation that then triggered a strike by Washington on claimed militia targets in
Syria and also inside Iraq. Even though the U.S. military presence is as a guest of the Iraqi
government, Washington went ahead with its attack even after the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil
Abdul-Mahdi said "no."
To justify its actions, Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, went so far as to insist that
"Iran is at war with the whole world," a clear demonstration of just how ignorant the White
House team actually is. The U.S. government characteristically has not provided any evidence
demonstrating either Iranian or Kata'ib involvement in recent developments, but after the
counter-strike killed 26 Iraqi soldiers, the mass demonstrations against the Embassy in Baghdad
became inevitable. The demonstrations were also attributed to Iran by Washington even though
the people in the street were undoubtedly Iraqis.
Now that the U.S. has also killed Suleimani and Muhandis in a drone strike at Baghdad
Airport, clearly accomplished without the approval of the Iraqi government, it is inevitable
that the prime minister will ask American forces to leave. That will in turn make the situation
for the remaining U.S. troops in neighboring Syria untenable. And it will also force other Arab
states in the region to rethink their hosting of U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen due
to the law of unanticipated consequences as it is now clear that Washington has foolishly begun
a war that serves no one's interests.
The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is
clearly on Donald Trump's hands as this war was never inevitable and served no U.S. national
interest. It will surely turn out to be a debacle, as well as devastating for all parties
involved. And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited
beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions. Let us hope so!
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence
officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA
Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter
Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests
The question – who benefits? – has not been raised.
There was no benefit to Kata'ib Hezbollah or the Iranians to attack an American
installation.
There was no benefit to the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Iraq.
There was no benefit to anyone in Iraq or Iran in the shooting of "peaceful demonstrators" in
Iraq.
There is only one beneficiary to all of the above – Israel.
Mr. Giraldi is quite correct in laying this at Trump's feet and referring to his
incestuous relationship regarding Israel. After all, it it Trump that pulled out of the
JCPOA, and ultimately gave the order to strike. A previous strike was called off, what has
changed? I understand Mr. Giraldi is a never Trumper, and that is his right. Often it is not
what he says, but what he doesn't say, that is problematic. In this article, two things not
expanded stand out to me. The author proclaims his support for the JCPOA.
What is never explained is that the JCPOA was a voluntary restriction, by Iran, on its rights
as a signatory under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Former Reagan nuclear advisor Dr.
Gordon Prather was writing about the illegality of forcing restrictions on Iran back in the
days when "Bonkers" Bolton was foaming at the mouth for Bush 43 at the UN. Trump cancelling
the deal was not the problem. The problem was maintaining the US's illegal position on Iran's
rights under the NPT. Mr. Giraldi's opposition to the cancelling, without context, means he
finds the US's illegal position on Iran's rights under an international treaty as
acceptable.
The second issue is the intelligence surrounding the "alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a
U.S. installation". This is an operation straight out of the I sraeli S ecret
I ntelligence S ervice manual. It was acknowledged, by the military, 20 years
ago Israel had the capability to stage an attack and blame it on "Arabs". Who were those
involved in providing the "intelligence to Trump? How many of those people know/knew the
intelligence to be questionable or outright false, but allowed it to pass on anyway without
caveat? It is unknown whether Trump "asked the right questions" about the intelligence, and
if it came from military sources, I suspect none at all, of substance, were asked. Again, yes
Trump will, and should, be blamed, but how much of it involves the traitors within who will
continue with the internal rot?
@Bragadocious
You are one of the supreme a-holes on this site and I wish you would go somewhere else to
spread your pollution. But I will answer your question: Soleimani was not near the embassy.
He had flown into to town to attend the funerals of the 26 Iraqi militiamen that we Americans
had killed earlier in the week!
This is a watershed moment in our enslaved country, and the net is rife with speculations as
to where this will lead to.
Personally, I don't believe that this will erupt in WW3, but the days of casual travel by
high-ranking US officials is probably over in the near term. What follows will be millions of
paper cuts and constant stress for our sons and daughters relegated to foreign lands in the
war for Israel. Did you sign up your children to die for Israel? I didn't.
So what can we expect? A lot of our children are going to come back in body bags in the
weeks ahead. The murder of the Iranian general with no proof of his hand in the recent death
of an American mercenary in Iraq, is a war crime – but who's looking? We have become
imitators of our BFF, Israel. Not only have we militarized our police force under their
auspices, we flout International law and civil rights without even blinking once. Sure, many
Iranians (and Iraqi) innocents will die in the process, but the silver lining is that this
will start the dominoes falling and lead to our Vietnam-like exit from the ME with our tail
between our legs, as we repeat the helicopter exits from the roofs of our embassies.
From all indications, the Iranian general was a revered man inside and outside Iran. He
appears to have arrived in Baghdad to attend the funeral of the people killed in the
airstrike by US/Israel. Killing people headed to funerals and weddings seems to have become
our MO in recent years. No US president in the last few decades has had his hands clean. Out
damned spot!
Meanwhile, who was that "killed" contractor? Is there a name attached to that
speculatively fictitious soul whose alleged death was the rationale for the murder? It is a
sign of the times that our first reaction to anything we hear from the PTB is one of
skepticism and disbelief. This does not bode well for our rulers when the slaves reject
whatever claims they make.
Sadly, the revolution will not begin in Pretoria, but in distant lands, far from the
prying eyes of the sleeping citizenry of this land. As Allison Weir would say, if Americans
knew what is being perpetrated in our name, they would realize that we are all
Palestinians.
Trump has been compromised. Whether you believe that he is or isn't behind this, is
irrelevant. Frankly, it doesn't really matter who the president is – he is a powerless
puppet. I suspect that the deep state initiated this and then informed Trump post-facto. The
absence of an immediate tweets (tweet with a US flag suggests speechlessness), followed by an
announcement from the Pentagon that Trump had personally ordered the attack, instead of Trump
boasting about it, does not fit his usual pattern. My guess is that he knows that going
against the will of the deep state would result in his being JFK'ed.
I expect the following in the days ahead:
– There will be outrage in Iraq and demands for us to go home – which we
won't
– Our children/cannon fodder will be targeted across the ME
– One or more US high officials or Military leaders will be assassinated, perhaps
Graham or Pompeo or Adelson
– Israel will use the distraction to annex more Palestinian territory.
– Every US politician will blame the victims
– Israel and KSA will be walking around in adult diapers for the next shoe to drop
Take heart, the end is nigh. It is the witching hour. It is a replay of history as the
empire shoots itself in the foot. Remember which country invented the game of Chess –
it wasn't us or our European cousins.
I read somewhere that the order for this assassination came from Trump himself. I read this
as meaning that the order came from Israel and Trump's staff advised against it. I hope Iran
takes this into account as they plan their retaliation.
The other interesting dynamic is that common folk are waking up to the ZOG on the one hand,
and the government/media is doing their level best to slow this awakening. I wonder how this
assassination and its aftermath fit into all of it.
The one big fear I have in the near-term is that, with the expected retaliation from Iran, it
is the perfect opportunity for Israel to launch a false flag somewhere and blame it on Iran,
further turning up the heat.
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from
OffGuardian that
clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what
could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable
asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that
he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for
years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money
at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making
threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of
actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever
risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism'
as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly
look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they
have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost
certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond
anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much
false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we
can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation,
supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite
description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating
levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top
Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when
it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might
still happen."
Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group
of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike
against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.
But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically
escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to
mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani
along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one.
Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind.
What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?
Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and
Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.
"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia
militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right
back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."
"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants
to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this,
that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."
McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now
he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many
see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.
So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story
of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a
grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.
-- -- -- -- --
"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite
militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy
complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the
country"
"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters
that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful
militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by
Iran."
"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would
redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the
gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul
Mahdi."
"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia
group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket
attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese
designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers
were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've
been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems
to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.
Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already
composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing
low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack.
They're as high profile as they come.
Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse
rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.
There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also
sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters
story.
-- -- -- -- --
Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out
attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met
on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S.
Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the
commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was
assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the
invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil,
one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the
commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf
al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting
discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic
Forces."
Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the
security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli
Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their
sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)
-- -- -- -- --
I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in
Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if
Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is
exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria
whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This
morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can
elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria
and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with
the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the
al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and
endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.
So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a
threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an
imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question
of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I
will leave for my next post.
A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade
Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of
a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that
J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in
laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect
by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's
contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the
Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The
unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we
are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we
deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.
Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US
dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and
cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry
about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed
the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no
matter how much it costs us.
Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a
while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have
spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of
thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off
from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists?
Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.
The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity.
Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that
it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely
yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their
regional strength.
Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more
trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and
let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was
exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently
using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of
studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.
When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various
government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting
protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.
In my
humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC
becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"
According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the
same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last
year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of
anything, but what are the chances?
If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM
would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and
stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out
of the picture or left in place.
Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands
of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.
Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But
this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to
lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its
operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government
officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of
Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his
professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than
others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally
formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.
That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of
villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians
are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an
alien culture."
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage
Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...
For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded
general...or else...
Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history (
he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or
that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody
must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?
That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our
times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is
needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...
BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...
The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world,
big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big
real state, and US think tanks...
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable
fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his
father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed
to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred
at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.
But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in
his simpleness?
May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...
As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for
having fallen from the heights he was...
It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with
Pompeo...
A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk
Pence´s mega-lie...
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent
threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan
with sights on West Coast US cities.
Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all
breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.
This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the
"mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence
claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't
so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in
cahoots with Osama bin Laden.
I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour.
After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist
loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb,
invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our
soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest
rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a
lot!
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a
full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an
excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's
ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war
(like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites
locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election
by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement
& CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another
Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.
I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt
he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base
in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America?
A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate
acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our
highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills
to accomplish them.
If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could
potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour."
BP,
Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism
by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades
long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just
gotten worse through my lifetime.
I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has
no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.
I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military
adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the
heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring
light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance
state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of
market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our
entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the
majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct
responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?
If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it
clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel
deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon
spokesman, said in an email."
So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq
i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.
If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces
on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the
intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17
tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had
intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to
them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is
"razor thin".
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing
out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the
Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we
think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly
permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections
once the official sources make their official statements).
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw
their troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops
on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of
its sovereignty .
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go
far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized
.
The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see
here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming
next.
For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates
that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we
ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and
without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to
yield victory…
Analysis
Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel
from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake,
this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?
For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.
Second, the US now has two options:
Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria
Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has
left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever
before).
The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely
outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.
Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces
being "THE BEST").
Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.
This is so important that I need to repeat it again:
The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.
I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and
the Yemeni Houthis).
Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is
what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR
the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.
Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional
as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order.
So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in
the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).
No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will
begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:
Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations
and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges,
hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that
one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia:
a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)
Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and
that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced
by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").
Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).
In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.
Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.
Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise.
As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move,
we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance,
the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".
Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally
horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are
truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young
soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about
THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.
I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.
I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.
The Saker
UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel
Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:
Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases
in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American
products.
Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:
UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.
UPDATE4 :
Zerohedge
is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each
Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to
get a confirmation from Iran about this.
UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.
UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational
Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear
who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation
policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please
be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant
to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more
quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs: You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated. The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will
look like before you send it.
(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an
American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!
America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.
Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then
"bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."
-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign
forces, it is not actually legally binding.
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have
the authority to act?
That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will
repeat and repeat and make it seem real.
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that
stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus
have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and
world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the
heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran
under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal
their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been
limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped
away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not
more (depending on the actual plan)."
Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated
into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support
roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in
his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would
need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave
quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they
need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker
is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly
Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it
happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the
majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a
ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans,
we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a
best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts
for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but
it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to
https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which
is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/
The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though.
1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little
window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this
problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back
button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.
2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf
oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main
reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and
might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and
Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army
elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking
that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.
3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope
and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined
and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants
. Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans.
Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated
in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an
historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now.
Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they
are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed
by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything
like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature,
movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70
years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent
them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going
to be of significant interest.
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous
population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of
war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people,
which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.
Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.
Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system
needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.
I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about
what possible horrors lie ahead?
The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.
Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.
Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."
My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward
the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population
under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.
History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed
public not realizing what's happened.
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes
in Group 2.
But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A
and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally,
with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting
themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness
to set the whole house on fire when they don't.
It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy,
and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry
mob
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total
lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not
all of America was like this.
There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers
a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain
replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing
me, and you will be armed"
Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling
Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still
hold to it closely – and that's good to know.
** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought
for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US
weren't going to allow that to go to air!!
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding
of the empire.
Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week
end for you.
Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.
And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post
her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support
of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."
Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it
deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an
official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport
and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility
in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder
and have decided they cannot support this beast.
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first
move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.
All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened,
made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.
I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless
america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of
pychopathic hatred against humanity.
In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by
this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred
and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management
techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.
Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.
I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or
privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.
It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation,
is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone
then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.
Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't
be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.
Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly
advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.
The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities
of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.
Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion
drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their
heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills,
man!
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed
by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional
and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives
is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt.
The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.
Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted
a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked
to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work
in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video
displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.
Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival
instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know
it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war,
and chauvinism they vote for and more.
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing
it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything.
Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the
to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid.
If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown
that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.
Let me quickly explain.
It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all
Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.
Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding
them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless
cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.
Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on
the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.
We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they
are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.
In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted
to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire
– Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar'
and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.
To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency
units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram
of domination.
All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).
All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all
'settle' in US Dollars.
Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most
well known).
Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?
The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the
US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').
It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including
peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.
Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic
communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking
operations).
Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.
Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover
from such a blow quickly.
Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying
bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready
fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.
The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we
can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical
cables and wireless nodes).
I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.
Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and
humiliation.
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "
No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and
to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base
( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have
changed since that war.
US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus
US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general
AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off
load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.
An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has
a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly
300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering
the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just
did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring
blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'
Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close
to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen,
VVP will not allow it.
Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again.
The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit,
the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead
are victims of training accidents or air accidents.
Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within
the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise)
they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war
is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.
As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go
back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056
A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel
injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation
promised by Iran will only come later."
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about
the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting
war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically
be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful
gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against
brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you
can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities
in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities.
You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression
involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case
of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor?
And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never
ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need
reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question,
have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.
Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site,
infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a
nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching
missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand
for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.
I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate.
But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?
"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader
conflagration is a real possibility"
Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The
Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end
up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep
State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army
(that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can
say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have
its troops home and Trump will be reelected
Looks like Trump administration buried the Treaty of non-proliferation once and for all. From now on only a country with
nuclear weapons can be viewed as a sovereign country.
Notable quotes:
"... To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating tensions with Iran ..."
"... Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict on it in response to their actions could be "manageable". ..."
"... The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable" costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be manipulated into a serious crisis. ..."
Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is
being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither
men can afford to do so, which makes it likely that a lot more people than just Maj. Gen.
Soleimani might be about to die.
To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not
abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event
in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating
tensions with Iran (despite believing that they're doing so in "self-defense)
Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict
on it in response to their actions could be "manageable".
The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons
safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable"
costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be
manipulated into a serious crisis.
This will end great, a fucked up circus called congress who hasn't had the balls to do their
job and legally declare war for nearly three decades, and a president who can't even defend
himself from a gang of thugs staging a direct coup against him in his own government. What
could possibly go wrong?
The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: "the strong do what they will, the weak
suffer what they must."
Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting,
especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long
range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't
fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy.
So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians
they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides
nailed it.
Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started
the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude. It was Athens that also ended that war, of course. They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.
Ukraine is now a pawn in a big geopolitical game against Russia. Which somehow survived 90th when everybody including myself has
written it off.
That's why the USA, EU (Germany) and Russia pulling the country in different directions. But the victory of Ukrainian nationalists
is not surprising and is not solely based on the US interferences (although the USA did lot in this direction) pursuit its geopolitical
game against Russia. Distancing themselves from Russa is a universal trend in Post-Soviet space. And it often takes ugly forms.
So Ukraine in not an exception here. It is part of the "rule". Essentially the dissolution of the USSR revised the result on WWII.
And while the author correctly calls Ukrainian leader US stooges, they moved in this direction because they feel that it is necessary
for maintaining the independence. In other words anti-Russian stance is considered by the Ukrainian elite as a a pre-condition for mainlining
independence. Otherwise people like Parubiy would be in jail very soon. They are tolerated and even promoted because they are useful.
It repeats the story of Baltic Republics, albeit with a significant time delay. There should be some social group that secure independence
of the country and Ukrainian nationalists happen to be such a group. That's why Yanukovich supported them and Svoboda party (with predictable
results).
Notable quotes:
"... The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional negotiations. ..."
"... Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President. And who were helping lead this effort? ..."
"... The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine. ..."
"... US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts. ..."
"... US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS. ..."
"... This is : ..."
"... Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11. ..."
"... There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom. ..."
"... A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list. ..."
"... An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west. ..."
"... The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them. ..."
"... I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties. ..."
"... "Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic". ..."
"... But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy? ..."
"... A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression. ..."
"... I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption. ..."
"... What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. ..."
"... Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis. ..."
The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize
the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants
of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional
negotiations.
Who is the United States government and media supporting? The Nazis . You think I'm joking. Here are the facts, but we must go
back to World War II
:
When World War II began a large part of western Ukraine welcomed the German soldiers as liberators from the recently enforced
Soviet rule and openly collaborated with the Germans. The Soviet leader, Stalin, imposed policies that caused the deaths of almost
7 million Ukrainians in the 1930s--an era known as the Holomodor).
Ukrainian divisions, regiments and battalions were formed, such as SS Galizien, Nachtigal and Roland, and served under German
leadership. In the first few weeks of the war, more than 80 thousand people from the Galizien region volunteered for the SS Galizien,
which later known for its extreme cruelty towards Polish, Jewish and Russian people on the territory of Ukraine.
Members of these military groups came mostly from the organization of Ukrainian nationalists aka the OUN, which was founded in
1929. It's leader was Stepan Bandera, known then and today for his extreme anti-semitic and anti-communist views.
CIA documents just recently declassified show strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.
Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side
of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President.
And who were helping lead
this effort?
Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy was the founder of the Social National
Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.
The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party whose leader,
Oleh Tyahnybok was
one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests. . . .
Overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is
Dmytro Yarosh , the leader of the Right
Sector – a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who
previously boasted they were ready for
armed struggle to free Ukraine.
The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology.
We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia,
which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our
eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine.
US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor
Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints
if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such
facts.
But Viktor Yushchenko is not an American who speaks a foreign language. He is very much a Ukrainian nationalist and steeped in
the anti-Semitism that dominates the ideology of western Ukraine. During the final months of his Presidency, Yushchenko made the
following declaration:
In conclusion I would like to say something that is long awaited by the Ukrainian patriots for many years I have signed a decree
for the unbroken spirit and standing for the idea of fighting for independent Ukraine. I declare Stepan Bandera a national hero of
Ukraine.
Without hesitation or shame, Yushchenko endorsed the legacy of Bandera, who had happily aligned with the Nazis in pursuit of his
own nationalist goals. Those goals, however, did not include Jews. And here is the ultimate irony--Bandera was born in Austria, not
the Ukraine. So much for ideological consistency.
US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open
and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets.
One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS.
This is :
a USAID program with other National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated groups: the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. In 2010, the reported disbursement
for CEPPS in Ukraine was nearly $5 million.
The program's efforts are described on the USAID website as providing "training for political party activists and locally elected
officials to improve communication with civic groups and citizens, and the development of NGO-led advocacy campaigns on electoral
and political process issues."
Anyone prepared to argue that it would be okay for Russia, through its Foreign Ministry, to contribute several million dollars
for training party activists in the United States?
What we do not know is how much money was being spent on covert activities directed and managed by the CIA. During the political
upheaval in April 2014 (Maidan 2), there was this news item:
Over the weekend, CIA director John Brennan travelled to Kiev, nobody knows exactly why, but some speculate that he intends to
open US intelligence resources to Ukrainian leaders about real-time Russian military maneuvers. The US has, thus far, refrained from
sharing such knowledge because Moscow is believed to have penetrated much of Ukraine's communications systems – and
Washington isn't about to hand over its surveillance secrets to the
Russians.
Do you think Americans would be outraged if the head of Russia's version of the CIA, the SVR or FSB, traveled quietly to the United
States to meet with Donald Trump prior to his election? I think that would qualify as meddling.
Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not
talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian
citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign
and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending
and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous
to our nation's safety and freedom.
Good post pt.. thanks... i never knew ''the wife of former President Viktor Yushchenko was an American citizen and former senior
official in the US State Department.'' That is informative.. i recall following this closely back in 2014.. the hypocrisy on display
in the usa at present is truly amazing and frightening at the same time.. it appears that the public can be cowed very easily..
On the twitters, you would be accused of "whatabouttism" - which is the crime of excusing Putin's diabolism by pointing out
American interference with the internal politics an elections of other nations. A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes
to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list.
An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the
Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi
state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf.
Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced
in the Slavic sphere as well as the west.
It's not only the US. The EU borg are also meddling. In my country we had a referendum about Ukraine. The population voted "Against"
on the question: "Are you for or against the Approval Act of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine?"
This was the only referendum that was done since it was implemented in 2015. A second one is being organized on the Intelligence
and Security Services which has controversial parts with regard to access to internet traffic.
This referendum will take place on March 21, 2018 and will probably be voted against because of the controversial elements
(in part because there is still living memory of our Eastern neighbors in the second world war)
These 2 will probably be the last. Our house of representatives have voted yesterday to end the referendum law (with a majority
vote of 76 out of 150 representatives!)
So much for democracy. The reason stated that the referendum was controversial (probably because they voted against the EU
borg). Interesting is that the proposal was done by the party that wanted the referendum as a principal point. This will almost
certainly ensure that the little respect left for traditional parties is gone and they will not be able to get a majority next
elections.
The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader
Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy
Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them.
I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the
victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority
of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people
from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans
until late in the fifties.
Even in the nineties anybody who travelled in Ukraine could feel the tension between East and West. The Russians were certainly
aware of it and mindful not to rip the country apart they cut the Ukrainians an enormous amount of slack. Of course they supported
"their" candidates and shoveled money into their insatiable throats. Only to be disappointed time and again. "Prorussian"
Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People
forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic".
Really the West should have been content with things as they were.
But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As
a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like
asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy?
Really the West (not only the US -the Eu is also guilty) is to blame. It is long past time to get down from the high horse
and stop spreading chaos and mayhem in the name of democracy,
An informative column. The coup & later developments soured me on the MSMedia. I'm an initiate into modern Russian
history: NATO in the Ukraine = WW3!
Some additional history:
A Ukrainian nation did not exist until after WW1; one piece was Russian, another Polish and another Austrian. The Holodomor
is exaggerated for political purposes; the actual number dead from famine appears to be 'only' 2M. It wasn't Soviet bloody mindedness,
it was Soviet agricultural mismanagement; collectivizing agriculture drops production.
They did this right before the great drought of the 1930s - remember the dustbowl. There was a famine in Kazakestan at the
same time; 1.5M died.
The Nazis raised 5 SS divisions out of the Ukraine. As the Germans were pushed back they ran night drops of ordnance into the
Ukraine as long as they could. The Soviets had to carry on divisional level counter insurgency until 1956. After the war, Gehlen,
Nazi intelligence czar, kept himself out of jail by turning over his files, routes & agents to the US. He also stoked anti Soviet
paranoia.
The Brits ended up with a whole Ukr SS division that they didn't want, so they gave it to Canada. Which is why Canada has such
cranky policy around the Ukraine!
A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers
of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk
This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression.
I'm sure you'd like us to ignore Bandera. I bet he liked children and dogs. Just like Hitler. Bandera was a genuine bad
guy. There is no rehabilitating that scourge on society. Nice try though.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your final comment is sarcasm. When you have two senior US Government officials
who will and will not constitute a foreign government, you have gone beyond meddling. It is worse.
The media is hysterical. Today, Putin's Facebook Bot Collaborator contacted the Kremlin before his mercenaries attacked Americans
in Syria.
I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This
is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption.
A World War is near. The realists are gone. The Moguls are pushing Donald Trump pull the trigger. Either in Syria with an assault
to destroy Hezbollah (Iran) for good or American trainers going over the top of trenches in Donbass in a centennial attack of
the dead.
Hallelujah and jubilation! We're in full agreement on this subject. What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A
remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's
bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval
base.
I would definitely want to see a full account of what support we provided to the nazi thugs of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. We
have a long history of meddling, at least twice as long as the Soviet Union/Russia. But that does not mean we should stop investigating
the Russian interference in our 2016 election. Just stop hyperventilating over it. It no more deserves risking a war than our
continuing mutual espionage.
Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian
sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government.
Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis.
As a result of this rebellion, the Russian majority in Crimea overwhelming voted to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which
they had been part of for over 150-years. While our government continues to provide military aid to Israel, which used force of
arms take over the West Bank, it imposed sanctions against Russia when the people of Crimea voted to join their former countrymen.
Mind boggling.
Now we understand that it was Adelson money talking for Trump, when he campaigned in 2016 on
the platform of hostility of Iran and abandonment of the nuclear deal.
While derail who and how ordered the assassination, one thing it clear: Trump no longer
deserve re-election. He is yet another Hillary now. Any of Dem opponents excluding Biden, who is
dead fish in any case, are better then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment. After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State Department. ..."
"... Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap: ..."
"... Trump, who had no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he wanted to crush the Iranian state. ..."
"... Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the map. ..."
"... Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored term, "targeted killings." ..."
"... While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately, consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq. ..."
"... Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna wrote on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like Soleimani." ..."
"... Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want him removed from office ..."
While the media focus for three years of the Trump presidency has centered around "Russia
collusion" and impeachment, the most dangerous collusion of all was happening right out in the
open -- the Trump/Saudi/Israel/UAE
drive to war with Iran .
On August 3, 2016 -- just three months before Donald Trump would win the Electoral College
vote and ascend to power -- Blackwater founder Erik Prince arranged a meeting at Trump Tower.
For decades, Prince had been agitating for a war with Iran and, as early as 2010, had developed
a fantastical proposal for using mercenaries to wage it.
At this meeting was George Nader, an American citizen who had a long history of being a
quiet emissary for the United States in the Middle East. Nader, who had also worked for
Blackwater and Prince, was a convicted pedophile in the Czech Republic and is facing similar
allegations in the United States. Nader worked as an adviser for the Emirati royals and has
close ties to Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince. Join Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in There was also an
Israeli at the Trump Tower meeting: Joel Zamel. He was there supposedly pitching a
multimillion-dollar social media manipulation campaign to the Trump team. Zamel's company,
Psy-Group, boasts of employing former Israeli intelligence operatives. Nader and Zamel were
joined by Donald Trump Jr. According to the New York Times, the purpose of the meeting
was "primarily to offer help to the Trump team, and it forged relationships between the men and
Trump insiders that would develop over the coming months, past the election and well into
President Trump's first year in office."
One major common goal ran through the agendas of all the participants in this Trump Tower
meeting: regime change in Iran. Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing
the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his
administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment.
After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him
last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his
interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally
belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State
Department.
Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the
fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap:
Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this
was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the
first step to regime change in Tehran.
Trump, who had
no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by
conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he
wanted to crush the Iranian state.
Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush
with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of
extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the
map.
While Barack Obama provided crucial military and intelligence support for Saudi Arabia's
scorched earth campaign in Yemen, which killed untold numbers of civilians, Trump escalated
that mass murder in a blatant effort to draw Iran militarily into a conflict. That was the
agenda of the gulf monarchies and Israel, and it coincided neatly with the neoconservative
dreams of overthrowing the Iranian government. As the U.S. and Saudi Arabia intensified their
military attacks in Yemen, Iran began to insert itself more and more forcefully into Yemeni
affairs, though Tehran was careful not to be tricked into offering this Trump/Saudi/UAE/Israel
coalition a justification for wider war.
Protesters shout slogans against the United States and Israel as they hold posters with the
image of top Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq,
and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a demonstration in the Kashmiri town of Magam on
Jan. 3, 2020.
Photo: Tauseef Mustafa/AFP/Getty Images The assassination of Suleimani -- a popular figure
in Iran who is viewed as one of the major drivers of ISIS's defeat in Iraq -- was one of only a
handful of actions that the U.S. could have taken that would almost certainly lead to a war
with Iran. This assassination, reportedly ordered directly by Trump, was advocated by the most
dangerous and extreme players in the U.S. foreign policy establishment with that exact
intent.
Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it
has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored
term, "targeted killings." The U.S. Congress has intentionally never legislated the issue
of assassination. Lawmakers have avoided even defining the word "assassination." While every
president since Gerald Ford has upheld an executive order banning assassinations by U.S.
personnel, they have each carried out assassinations with little to no congressional outcry.
Read Our Complete
Coverage The Iran Cables In 1976, following Church Committee recommendations regarding
allegations of assassination plots carried out by U.S. intelligence agencies, Ford signed an
executive order banning "political assassination." Jimmy Carter subsequently issued a new order
strengthening the prohibition by dropping the word "political" and extending it to include
persons "employed by or acting on behalf of the United States." In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed
Executive Order 12333, which remains in effect today. The language seems clear enough: "No
person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or
conspire to engage in, assassination."
As I
wrote in August 2017, reflecting on our Drone Papers series from two years earlier, "The
Obama administration, by institutionalizing a policy of drone-based killings of individuals
judged to pose a threat to national security -- without indictment or trial, through secret
processes -- bequeathed to our political culture, and thus to Donald Trump, a policy of
assassination, in direct violation of Executive Order 12333 and, moreover, the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution. To date, at least seven U.S. citizens are known to have been killed
under this policy, including a 16-year-old boy. Only one American, the radical preacher Anwar
al-Awlaki, was said to have been the 'intended target' of a strike."
There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani.
While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the
consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how
atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist
cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no
justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive
act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third
country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately,
consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq.
For three years, many Democrats have told the country that Trump is the gravest threat to a
democratic system we have faced. And yet many leading Democrats have voted consistently to give
Trump unprecedented military budgets and surveillance powers.
Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it
was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't
now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna
wrote
on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut
off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like
Soleimani."
Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign
policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want
him removed from office . Wait! Before you go on about your day, ask yourself: How likely
is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The
Intercept hadn't done it? Consider what the world of media would look like without The
Intercept. Who would hold party elites accountable to the values they proclaim to have? How
many covert wars, miscarriages of justice, and dystopian technologies would remain hidden if
our reporters weren't on the beat? The kind of reporting we do is essential to democracy, but
it is not easy, cheap, or profitable. The Intercept is an independent nonprofit news outlet. We
don't have ads, so we depend on our members -- 35,000 and counting -- to help us hold the
powerful to account. Joining is simple and doesn't need to cost a lot: You can become a
sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month. That's all it takes to support the
journalism you rely on.
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met
a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD
MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who
fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting
Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member
of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi
general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections.
That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in
international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have
"paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings
of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to
yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.
The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of
al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?
Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as
imperialist hypocrites.
Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity
could we have to do so?
Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and
rivalries. pl
What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on
Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by
the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his
enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was
going to some funerals...
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent
ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran."
Tulsi Gabbard.
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was
an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by
Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is
being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq
when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have
no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign
country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country
which does not honor the most basic of international law?
And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly
and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and
protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If
they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least
expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about
what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General
Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.
Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has
backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems
for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast
War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.
Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic
national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which
tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards
have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.
I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the
grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.
God help us all.
Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after?
Why?
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to
Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the
dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who
believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.
I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively
recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).
I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the
very few who are not jackals.
OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the
military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain
of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are
ignorant of the American government.
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary
executions...What you make of this?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some
other think tankers..
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by
the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no
different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and
his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be.
On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.
Iran should probably be very careful not to overplay his hand. The time in working it its favor.
Notable quotes:
"... Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians, Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow geopolitical motives." ..."
"... USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know) this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity. ..."
"... The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day. ..."
"... The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic sanctions warfare. ..."
The subject is 'revenge' and what Iranian authorities may or may not do.
The 'big picture' is re-building the security (and well-being) of ordinary Iranian,
Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni people - and all other decent people of the Middle East and beyond.
Tribal reaction is deep and strong. We all know and experience that. But to achieve 'the big picture' the first instinctive hind-brain reaction must be set
aside - or at least, allowed to 'recede'. Of course there must be re-balancing, which carries with it a feeling of vindication, if
not revenge.
Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians,
Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are
not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow
geopolitical motives."
Well the USA Government is guilty must apologise publicly and humbly. Compensation must be
paid.
Dialogue started.
USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government
employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know)
this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity.
The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered
by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day.
Clearly, decent people in USA need to campaign to limit Presidential powers. Revenge creates a spiral of escalation which becomes a vortex of destruction, perhaps
global. How does that improve peoples daily lives?
The duty of government is ensuring the security of its people. Does 'revenge' achieve this
in the years ahead? It is the instinctive option, yes, but is it the BEST long term
option?
In the end, parties must meet, compensation paid, and the hard slow work of building
acceptable inter-state relations based on rule of law and the UN Charter re-commenced.
In my view, there is no other option that meets the long term need of ordinary people.
But building this requires special people. Not wreckers and haters.
Will the urgency of the situation see them emerge?
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 4 2020 22:18 utc | 84
Thank you. Someone making sense. Most are talking about this like it's halftime in a
sporting match - completely juvenile.
Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology
and for strong ties with other responsible players. They have opportunities with many
countries which are increasingly disenchanted with the west. And the west is headed for an
economic beating - which explains the desperate behavior.
Even if Iran is very careful in their behavior Irael is going to continue to press for war
- the psychotic fears most those that he has attacked.
But maybe with careful behavior and planning and efforts to repair and maintain ties the
Iraninans could be ready for that eventuality.
Espen and Trump have made it clear that they will hold Iran responsible for whatever may
happen in the region and that they will strike in response or preemptively. Essentially, that
makes the real Iranian reaction largely irrelevant. And Israel could create a false flag
incident #a la USS Liberty. Or some rogue groups that Iran cannot control might attack US
troops or installations. Whether by design or accident, there will be a pretext to base
another military strike against Iran on. And then another, until a full blown US-Iran war
erupts which Bibi, Lieberman & co so desperately want.
Years of relentless demonization of Iran in the US and the UK have brainwashed large swaths
of the population. They will accept a war against Iran, albeit reluctantly, as long as not
too many Americans get killed in its wake.
I don't believe for a second that the US would "accept" a limited retaliation. They will
jump at any opportunity. Lindsey Graham stands between Trump and impeachment and that
warmonger is on record for seeking to bomb Iran's oil refineries. Incidentally, he was the
only senator who Trump consulted prior to the murder. Could well be that Graham is right now
the real P0TUS , at least until the senate has voted on impeachment. Conveniently, pelosi has
put the impeachment on hold, thereby prolonging that situation. Coincidence? I don't think
so.
Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the
war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers
(except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the
electorate.
Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done
to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran
will show.
I do think, btw that Trump blew his reelection by killing Suleimani. Another warmonger
will assuredly take his place.
After reading what Magnier has to say, a reasonable guess is that although emotions are
running high currently, Irans leadership will likely concentrate omn the work that must be
done during such a period, which is to (attempt to) influence the Iraqi parliamentry vote on
the continued presence of United States forces. As some have pointed out, this may lead to a
US retreat to the Kurdish areas, but even that can only be considered a victory, with
consequent practically free movement of Iranian military supplies to their allies in Syria
and Lebanon. With this development hopefully secured there is then plenty of time to
precisely calibrate any further responce to a level where dignity is preserved, without
necessarily bringing the wider ME area into further strife. Any waiting period is also useful
in further building up capability where needed, specifically in the case where US aggression
continues as it has done so far. US leaders seem not to appreciate that their showy
applications of force don't win them friends locally, and could eventually succeed in
unifying Iraq in a way Iran never could on its own.
This may have been referenced before, and b's previous post begins with a description of the
importance of Soleimani, but here is a further link for those who are still in doubt as to
his significance for everyone in the region:
I will also add from a post by Active Patriot at the Saker site: "...if Iran is a
friend and ally to Iraq and Syria they would not craft a response which drags either of those
2 countries deeper into more war and hardship."
Solameini's martyrdom is surely recognized as such by all in the ME who have suffered and
are suffering the century-long occupation/meddling/manipulating/lying that Western powers
have inflicted on the whole ME since before the Great War---now with the USA in the lead.
(One of Churchill's war aims in WW1 was to destroy the Ottoman Empire and grab as much of it
as Britain could grab. Then of course there was the Balfour Declaration crime.)
What is the "purpose" of martyrdom if it is not to galvanize action of some kind? To
galvanize a dramatic quantum leap in consciousness of the meaning of the martyr's
sacrifice---of his martyrdom. Surely Solameini will be seen to have died *for* something. For
what?
Perhaps to inspire a new setting aside of existing local conflicts to form an effective
front to *eject* the foreign virus from the body of the whole ME? To create a new coalition
among all citizens of all faiths in all of the besieged ME countries to oust the "crusaders"?
Didn't Nasser aspire to take charge of his region via the United *Arab* Republics? What about
United Sovereign Nations from the Levant to the Hindu Kush. And, make things uncomfortable
for Erdogan if he continues to host American Air Force?
Just wondering.
Also, what is Kurdish reaction to this murder? Kurds seem to be an element standing in the
way of unity of purpose in the ME.
1) Get a list of your favorite sites, then do a DNS lookup on their names, and put those
IP addresses in a HOSTS
file . If a site appears to go offline, try the IP address. If that doesn't work either,
well...
2) I have an old laptop that has wifi and an ethernet port, and it runs an older version
of Linux Mint. I wish I had an older version, and I may start looking. The more recent the
operating system (any!), the more likely it will have backdoors or some other 'critter'
running about and working against you.
3) If you have the hardware and some friends nearby, start an out-of-band neighborhood
network. This, as I envision it (with limited oracular ability, mind you), can be like the
Little Free
Library - just an accumulation of stuff each person has saved over the years, or whatever
can be obtained, and scanned if necessary. Wifi can work for this short-term, but plan to
bury multiple cables eventually. DO NOT EVER (knowingly) CONNECT THIS NETWORK TO THE
INTERNET!!!
4) Start planning for long-term storage of important books. Niven's novel Lucifer's Hammer describes
one character's efforts in this direction - he sunk a huge library of important 'civilization
cranking' books in a cesspool on a neighbor's property.
There's more, but we've a broad spectrum of things to consider at the moment, so I'll not
hog the thread.
As a matter of standing up and showing some jackasses in this thread that US citizens aren't
all Rambo...
I, Thomas James Kenney, hereby publicly state that it is my opinion the only way out of
this mess (and the only chance to save some semblance of a country) is to very publicly try
and imprison these vermin for high treason. They have committed an act that runs counter to
every attempted description of civilized behavior ever written.
It is also my considered opinion that it is not necessary for Iran to do anything at all.
Simply stay the course. We are almost bled out in this disintegrating 'republic', and people
around me are conversing about ways to disconnect from some of the toxic facets of this
society. There is not much support for a war, despite what the 'required 20%' continue to
scream.
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare.
The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
Just a reminder: Iran is not an Arabic country.
And many non-Arabs and non-Muslims live in ME countries (I am not counting Is as an ME
country in this context).
Which is why I express hope of perhaps a broader regional coalition.
The shooting down of flight 655 was a criminal act of manslaughter that should've brought
charges against the people responsible. But does b really consider destroying another plane
of civilians a justified retribution?
I wonder if Putin will force Trump to stop the escalation and show remorse to Iran before
any revenge happens.
US Congresswoman Maxine Waters has allegedly fallen for a prank call in which she thought
activist Greta Thunberg was offering her a tape of Donald Trump confessing to pressuring
Ukraine into investigating his political rivals. YouTube pranksters Vladimir Kuznetsov and
Alexey Stolyarov, who go by the names Vovan and Lexus, are claiming they tricked Waters
(Dem-Calif.) into thinking she was speaking to teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg.
Vovan and Lexus made names for themselves by previously pranking Congressman Adam Schiff
(Dem-Calif.) into thinking there were nude photos of US President Donald Trump that Schiff
could get his hands on. They also claim to have pranked Waters two years
ago, in a phone call where one posed as Ukraine's prime minister.
Though Waters herself has not responded to the new video, the woman at the other end of the
phone identifies herself as the congresswoman and sounds an awful lot like her.
In the call, the pranksters pretend to be Thunberg and her father, with help from a female
colleague, and claim to have proof that Trump pressured the Ukrainian government into
investigating his political rivals, something Democrats have claimed, for months now, is
true.
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
For weeks, it was Iranian consulates and facilities that bore the brunt of Iraqi
popular unrest. Iran reacted with restraint. With our lethal attacks on the Kata'ib
Hezbollah, we changed that. Pompeo, Esper and Trump are keeping up the trash talking.
Threatening Iran by killing Iraqis whose ass was that brilliant diplomatic strategy pulled
from?
####
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
much about it that screams of a policy flak who knows how to
present things as facts when they are anything but, and lead you into the piece already
believing that (a) Britain has been the victim of more than one attack by Russia, (b) that a
country supposedly friendless, without allies and with its economy reeling and staggering from
punishing sanctions still somehow has sufficient power to not only grip Europe, but to squeeze
it until it squeaks, and (c) Britain can do something about it.
passer-by, who helpfully attended them, just happened
to be none other than the senior medical officer in the British Army, and she was in no way
affected although she wore no protection than perhaps rubber gloves. Nick Bailey also wore
gloves, because it was cold. The next version had him entering the Skripal home – where
he was contaminated – via the back door. But the assassins had unhelpfully smeared the
poison on the front doorknob. Shit! So, unable to bring the assassins and the Skripals and Nick
Bailey all together at the same doorknob within the same period of lethality, the story was
changed again. Bailey had actually nipped next door, borrowed the spare key – the
existence of which was completely unknown to anyone prior to the television broadcast –
from a neighbour, and entered by the front door, where he became contaminated. It was touch and
go there for awhile, but he went home 18 days later, none the worse for his brush with one of
the deadliest nerve agents known to man. A nerve agent which, incidentally, was not known to
the elimination of other possibilities to have killed anyone. Dawn Sturgess died later, in
Amesbury, after spraying pure Novichok on her wrists from a fake perfume bottle, we are told.
But Dawn Sturgess was a known drug addict, Novichok as an aerosol spray would have taken effect
within seconds but she was not stricken for hours, and the medium of infection was not
discovered until three days after her death, sitting conspicuously on Charles Rowley's kitchen
counter, although the house had already been searched. Perfectly intact and waiting to be
discovered, although Charles Rowley's brother reported that the bottle had broken in his
brother's hands as Sturgess handed it back to him, which was how he became contaminated.
Another insultingly full-of-bullshit story that would not survive press scrutiny for an hour if
it had been Russia reporting a poisoning by British agents in Russia.
matsb
Jul
9, 2020 at 3:39 pm
Trump 'strongly considering' Michael Flynn pardon,
points at FBI 'conveniently losing' his records
Russian
rocket engines
Michael Jabara Carley
November 29, 2016 © Photo: Public domain
