Saker, of course, if "Russia firster". And that makes his analyses of Russia weaker than it should be. But his analysis of the USA
is superb.
Notable quotes:
"... What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq, and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially 'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world. ..."
"... And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever, and the Zionists are happy. ..."
"... And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked. ..."
"... re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the message, that one "USA bad" etc. ..."
"... The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say. ..."
"... US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change. ..."
"... Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations, good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action. ..."
"... It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one." (c) ..."
The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the
US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact
US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity
to go public about it.
But for 9/11, Alqaeda was always the US's baby. They were used in Afghanistan against the Soviets. US and its ally Pakistan
fully backed Osama and his ilk for a long time. If not for 9/11, US and Alqeda's good relations would have been unbroken.
It's like US-Japan's relations. It got rocky cuz of disagreement over China and then Pearl Harbor. But had it not been for
that, US-Japan relations would have been smooth throughout the 20th century. US had initially backed Japan's war with Russia and
looked the other way when Japan moved into Korea and China. It was Japan's over-reaching that set the two nations apart and led
to Pearl Harbor. But after WWII, they were friends against against China and Russia.
So, it shouldn't surprise us that US and Alqaeda are pals again. They were for a long time. It was US presence in Saudi Arabia
that made Osama bitter and turn against his ally, the US. But with Iran and Shias as the Big Enemy, the US and Alqaeda are friends
again.
And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that the odds are not in their favor. For one thing, an endless stream
of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action,
especially for clueless people.
What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq,
and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation
is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially
'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world.
And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever,
and the Zionists are happy.
And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked.
...These were great successes in a sick way. The Zionist-US goal was to spread chaos and turn those nations into hellholes
that will take many decades to recover. And since 9/11, there's been hardly any major terrorist attacks in America.
Beauties of time zone(s). Anyway . The usual Saker's "panic attack". So, for those 10 % here who aren't actually on his
wavelength, a brief comment. As usual there is a bit of discrepancy between:
the AngloZionist Empire is reeling from its humiliating defeat in Syria
and
Syria (threats of a US-Israeli-KSA attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)
attack on Russian forces in Syria)
.attack Iranian forces in Syria)
but not important, of course. Just think "USA bad", "Russia good" and all makes sense. Surprisingly, though, this is well stated
Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggression is, at this point in time, probably
futile.
with a bit of Freudian slip
that is really frightening.
re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China
are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the
message, that one "USA bad" etc.
Now, he got this mostly right:
whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign
superiority: the drones believes in his/her ideology, but his rulers believe in absolutely nothing.
Except they do believe in something: POWER.
He got close here, I admit:
Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:
1. We can buy anybody
2. Those we cannot buy, we bully
3. Those we cannot bully we kill
4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do
Now, I also admit THIS is quite interesting:
The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that
the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope,
in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the
honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.
Still, the explanation feels weak.
Imbeciles and cowards. Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing them.
He could've gone deeper, but that would've complicated the message. Propaganda is all about keeping things simple and close
to the lowest denominator (read imbecile). Makes sense, actually. He is correct here, though:
Alas, this is also a very hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.
The usual "Bad USA has been losing badly" compulsory part of the article we'll skip here, save:
.to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option
("panic" thing) And, of course oh man .
Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart.
I suggest reading this a couple of times. For a couple of reasons I'd leave to the reader. Back to topic at hand:
I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria
and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it.
with
I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't
think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway,
right?!)
..("panic" thing)
and
Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them
from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely
..("panic" thing).
and
The truth is that at this point nobody knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans.
Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire?
You tell me!
("panic" thing).
And, at the end, kudos actually, he appears to be getting there:
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018. All my education has
always been based on a crucial central assumption: the other guy is rational.
This isn't bad:
The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more
catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope
so. That is the best I can say.
But I'd keep focus on "I frankly don't know if they can do it". Now, back to fanboys and resident agenda pushers.
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018.
US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs
like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change.
America needs a new civil 'war' to set things right. The ruling elites must be outed, routed, and destroyed. But the elites
have framed the civil war in America as between 'nazis' and 'antifa', and this divide-and-conquer strategy gets nothing done.
The American Left is more at war with Civil War monuments than with the REAL power. This civil 'war' must be between people vs
the elites. But elites have manipulated the conflict as 'blue' vs 'red'.
What happens IN America will affect what happens OUTSIDE America.
There are people on both right and left who know what is going on with this neo-imperialism BS. Elite intellectuals are useless
as critics because the filtering system for elitism favors the cucks and toadies. To reach the top in any profession, one has
to suck up to Zionists, denounce Russia, worship homos, and denounce any form of white agency as 'white supremacism'.
... ... ...
How can the elite power be challenged by non-elites? Is there some way? A new way to use the internet? Maybe. That must be
why the Platforms are shutting down so many alternative voices.
And how can masses of Trumptards and Anti-Trump resistance be convinced that the real power is not with Trump or any president
but with the Deep State that colludes with Big Media and Big donors?
So many Trumptards think all is fine because Trump is president. Likewise, so many progs paid no attention as long as Obama
was president even though Obama proved to be a war criminal.
US is now a silly nation where progs are totally incensed over 'gay cakes'. With dummy populists who think in terms of flag
and guns and idiot decadent proggists who think in terms of 'muh gender' and 'white privilege', a true challenge to sick elite
power is impossible.
We need more on the right to call out on Trump, and we need more on the left to call out on likes of Obama and Hillary. And
both sides need to focus on the Power above Trump-Hillary-Obama. But they are too childish to see anything cuz for most of them,
it's either 'muh guns' or 'muh gender'.
Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations,
good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that
battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action.
Yet none of that prevents them from claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc. This is absolutely
amazing, think of it –
It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we
may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American
victory as well as a Soviet one." (c)
Calvin Coolidge referred to Japan as America's natural friend. Were the economic sanctions imposed because of Japanese expansion
in China, Indochina and the Dutch East Indies really necessary? How important was it to Mr. and Mrs. Average American that China
be governed by Communists, warlords and corrupt nationalists, that Indochina be governed by French colonialists, and the Dutch
East Indies be governed by Dutch colonialists, than by Japanese imperalists? Pat Buchanan has called WWII in Europe the unnecessary
war; I think the truly unnecessary WWII conflict was in the Pacific.
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.
The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN,
their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that
he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine,
call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea,
maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand
NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist
attack.
Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too
(picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to
wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.
All signs that the citizens of the imperial court have poisoned themselves with their own
propaganda. Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for
the rubes. An exceedingly dangerous condition.
I was surprised neither China or Russia vetoed the recent UN sanctions on North Korea. I
can see how the SCO countries would want to play for time, but I wonder if throwing NK to the
wolves makes war more likely rather than less so. I could see Iran interpreting it as being
on deck (next, a baseball term), and the Neocons as a green light.
And so few seem to care... It's almost as if they've been conditioned to want war.
I was dragged to the latest Star Wars movie this weekend. Explosion porn... For a story
ostensibly about sacrifice and honor, it had so many silly comic book jokes I was almost
surprised it didn't have a laugh track.
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and
states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who
"threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is
true.
If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national
security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and
ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the
legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national
security threats" as Iran and DPRK.
Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't
negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here
a sort of détente is possible.
It actually appears to be from "Napalm: an American Biography" by Robert M. Neer, 2013.
The book is divided into 3 sections: Hero, Soldier, Pariah - hence the seeming title of
Soldier at the top of the page.
A Google search on "correspondent Cutforth" (including the quotation marks) returns a
slightly differently typeset book but with the same copy as b's image. The image itself is
also returned under Images for that search. So it's definitely the Napalm book.
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.
The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN,
their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that
he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine,
call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea,
maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand
NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist
attack.
Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too
(picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to
wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and
states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who
"threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is
true.
If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national
security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and
ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the
legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national
security threats" as Iran and DPRK.
Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't
negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here
a sort of détente is possible.
"Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the
rubes."
Exactly. And that condition seems to appertain to the formation of most domestic and
foreign policies emanating from Washington these day. That's what you get in a country where
folks like to gorge themselves on the swill of cable news and talk radio.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act requires the president to submit a "National Security Strategy" report each year. Every president since
Ronald Reagan has failed to comply with the law in one or more years of his administration, but on December 17 Donald Trump issued
his report
.
Unfortunately, Trump's offering is of a piece with his prior displays of economic illiteracy and foreign policy jingoism. It's
a dog's breakfast of policy pronouncements that couldn't be more opposed to real "national security" if that had been the author's
intention.
The document reiterates Trump's commitment to economic protectionism in the guise of "fair and reciprocal" trade, rattles sabers
at Russia, China, and North Korea, and commits to extending decades of disastrous US military adventurism in the Middle East.
Trump's distant predecessors showed us what a real "National Security Strategy" would look like.
At the end of his two terms as president, George Washington warned in his farewell address that "[t]he great rule of conduct for
us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
Thomas Jefferson echoed that sentiment in his first inaugural address, announcing a doctrine of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship
with all nations – entangling alliances with none."
While serving as US Secretary of State, future president John Quincy Adams observed that America "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."
Those principles served the US well to the extent that they were followed – with a few exceptions, throughout the 19th century.
But since the Spanish-American War of 1898, the US has increasingly styled itself an imperial power, attempting to dictate to the
world at a cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions more abroad, as well as trillions of dollars redirected from
productive endeavors to paying the butcher's bill. The 20th century was a near-continuous orgy of bloodshed which, for the US, was
entirely optional.
A real "National Security Strategy" comes down to two things: Free trade, and minding our own business.
Early in his presidential campaign, Trump hinted at the latter, but quickly reverted to business as usual. He's clearly never
grasped the former at all. Unfortunate, as the two are also the elements of a great presidency, if such a thing is even possible.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William
Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
"... The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern. ..."
"... Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. ..."
"... The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies. ..."
The duopoly succumbed to the war machine, while organized resistance got pushed to the fringe
Veterans For Peace rally in Washington, less than a month after 9/11. Credit:
Elvert Barnes/Flickr
"Imagine there's no heaven and no religion too."
A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be "Imagine there's no duopoly." It's hard to fault John Lennon for his
idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the
U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern
anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized -- even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate
in or near combat zones all over the world.
Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11
landscape. A less generous assessment is that it's been a bust. After liberals helped elect the "anti-war" Barack Obama, the movement
all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars,
Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance,
ultimately bombing seven different
countries during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin
lamented
, "We've been protesting Obama's foreign policy for years now, but we can't get the same numbers because the people who would've
been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama."
It's easy to blame the military-industrial complex, the corporate media, and the greed and malleability of politicians. But what
about the anti-war movement itself? Why has it failed so miserably, and can it revive as President Donald Trump continues the wars
of his predecessors and threatens new ones?
The rallies and protests in the early 2000s attracted significant numbers but they were weighed down by far-left organizations
like the World Workers Party, which brought with them myriad other issues beyond war like global warming and poverty. There was also
long-held and fairly broad skepticism about
the intentions of United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which organized most of the big protests over
the last 17 years. This was due to the "big tent" affiliations of some of their steering committee members, which critics say led
to a dilution of the message and drove the anti-war movement further from the mainstream.
Perhaps the movement's biggest weakness was that it shied away from directly attacking its own -- the liberal Democrats who voted
for the war in Congress.
In a sense, Democrats did emerge as the de facto anti-war party during the Iraq war, but that was only because a Republican --
George W. Bush -- was commander-in-chief. And what of the Democrats who voted for the war and continued to fund it? Out of 77 senators
who supported the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002, 20 are still in office and roughly half are Democrats,
while out of the 296 votes in favor in the House, 90 are still in office and 57 of them are Democrats. Some of them, like Harry Reid
and Chuck Schumer, went on to become party leaders. Two others, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, went on to become secretaries of
state and their party's nominees for president in 2004 and 2016 respectively. All went on to support new military interventions and
regime changes, albeit under a new, liberal interventionist, Democratic banner.
Conversely, steadfast non-interventionist Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the resolution, failed badly in both his
2004 and 2008 attempts at his party's presidential nomination. Bottom line: Support for the war was hardly a deal-breaker for voters,
any more than opposition to it was a dealmaker.
Reaction to war is just a microcosm of the political landscape, a manifestation of partisan-driven, short-term memory. Sure there
might have been momentary disapproval, but when it came time to decide whether supporters of the war stayed or went, the sins of
one's party leaders meant very little in the zero-sum game of electoral politics. Parties outside the duopoly be damned.
The same thing happened to the anti-war right, as the Ron Paul movement took off in 2008 with an immense level of grassroots energy.
One of the singular successes of his movement was the ability to reach people on an intellectual and practical level about the folly
of our foreign interventions and the waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars. Paul didn't shy from criticizing his own party's leaders
and actions. He explained the Federal Reserve's relationship to the monetary costs of war.
Ultimately, media blackouts and distortion of Paul's message (for example, conflating his non-interventionist foreign policy views
with "isolationism") helped kill his campaign. After Paul's 2008 defeat, conservative political activists seized upon the Texas congressman's
libertarian-leaning revolutionary momentum and channeled it into the Tea Party -- while leaving the non-interventionist impulses
behind. By 2011, national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin
acknowledged , "On foreign
policy probably the majority [of Tea Party Patriots] are more like [hawks] Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich."
And don't underestimate how the escalation of drone warfare during the Obama presidency muted the anti-war effort. Drone attacks
made fewer headlines because they supposedly caused less collateral damage and kept U.S. troops out of harm's way, which was portrayed
by administration officials and the war establishment in Washington as progress.
What the drone program did, in essence, was to create the illusion of "less war." Nevertheless,
studies showing an increase of terrorism since the beginning of the "war on terror" indicate precisely the opposite: Civilian
drone deaths (not always reported) create more enemies, meaning more of our troops will be put in harm's way eventually.
So where should the anti-war movement go from here? Perhaps it should begin by tempering its far-left impulses and embracing its
allies on the right who have been made to feel unwelcome. They could take a lesson from right-leaning places like Antiwar.com and
TAC that have long been open to writers and activists on the left.
Meanwhile, flying "Resist Trump" signs at rallies not only misses the mark by suggesting that our needless wars aren't a bipartisan,
systemic problem, but creates a non-inclusive atmosphere for anti-war Trump voters. Ironically, not much "resistance" was heard when
Democrats recently helped pass Trump's $700 billion 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and failed to repeal the original
post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, as was advocated for by Senator Rand Paul this year.
In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority
of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution. Most people are willing to accept that there's
a big difference between that and the terrible waste and tragedy that comes with waging unnecessary wars overseas.
They are also averse to their lawmakers doing favors for special interests. Focusing on the money and influence that giant defense
contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have on Capitol Hill -- essentially making war a business -- makes the anti-war point
by raising the issue of crony capitalism and the cozy relationship between politicians and big business, which increasingly leaves
the American public out of the equation.
These corporations, along with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, have accounted for $42 million in contributions to congressional
candidates since 2009, with $12 million in the 2016 cycle alone. The majority of these funds have targeted Armed Services
Committee members, such as perennial
war hawk John McCain. In addition, influential neoconservative think tanks have received millions in grants over the years from "philanthropic"
organizations such as the
Bradley Foundation and the Olin
Foundation, which have corporate backgrounds in the defense industry. The conservative Heritage Foundation is reportedly considering
the vice president of Lockheed
as its
new president.
Furthermore, mantras and slogans like, "you're either with us or against us" and "support our troops" have been used as powerful
psy-ops to create a false dichotomy: you either support the war policy or you're not patriotic. Debunking this by pointing out how
these wars profit the elite while serving as a pipeline that puts more American military servicemembers -- often from working-class
backgrounds -- into harm's way should appeal to the current populist spirit on both sides of the political fence. In fact, it could
begin to draw new, disenchanted voters into the movement.
Americans today are tired of war, which is good, for now. Unfortunately, without a strong anti-war movement, there won't be much
resistance when the next "big threat" comes along. The two major parties have proven to be false friends when it comes to opposing
war -- they only do it when it suits them politically. Moving beyond them and becoming stronger with allies and numbers -- imagine,
there's no parties -- is the best way to build a real opposition.
Daniel Martin is an anti-war activist, musician, and rock journalist from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter
@MartysInvasion .
The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being
sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the
fighting and the dying. None of your concern.
The so-called 'anti-war' or 'peace' movement is mostly a genuine grass roots phenomenon that relies upon volunteers and ordinary
people taking time out of their busy lives to become active. The energy and drive are hard to sustain on a volunteer basis.
To a great extent, motivation for activism is a reaction to something egregious, not a planned and sustained response to an on-going
situation. Despite the power of social media, reactively movements lead by well-intentioned amateurs cannot martial prolonged
support.
Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of
the corporate sector healthy and powerful. The activism that pulled the US out of SE Asia in the 70s took 10 years to build strength
against a what was less organised and planned war machine than we see today. The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer
army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against
their wealthy corporate allies.
The tragedy yet to be is that the business of war and its boosterism only ends when the suffering of war comes upon the nation
whose leaders make it. It might be different if the population were inclined against it, but there is a widespread belief in U.S.
Exceptionalism and a belief that it is America's birthright to rule the world by military force if required. And ruling peoples
against their wills does require force.
The consistency of human nature does not promise any respite from the propensity to make war, as has occurred throughout all
known history. Those wars will be waged with ever greater and even world-ending technology – there never has been a weapon created
that was not used, and every one of them has proliferated.
This makes sense to me. There has to be a coalition of anti interventionists across the political spectrum because the two parties
are dominated by warmongers. On foreign policy I am closer to many of the conservatives here than to many or most liberals I know
in real life or online. I have never heard a liberal in my real life mention Yemen or drones unless I bring it up. Syria was never
seen as a place where our support for " moderate" rebels kept the killing going. A friend of mine has become outraged when I tell
him our support for the Saudis in Yemen is much more important than Russiagate. So Russiagate matters more than our complicity
in a crime against humanity.
Mainstream liberals simply don't care about our stupid wars unless there is a large American death toll and it can be blamed
solely on a Republican. I am not saying conservatives are better. The ones here are better.
I hope that the anti-war movement grows again, and persists throughout the probable Democratic Presidency in 2020. There's such
little a single person can do, though.
1) Most military is below the headlines and it is hard to protest here. There several thousands troops in Africa and hardly
anybody knows it.
2) The last 7 Prez elections, 6 doves (2004 exception and yes Bush pretended to the dove in 2000.) won and yet the dovish winner
is more hawkish in the White House. So it is hard not to use the military and it would wise to answer that question,
3) Anti-War conservatives only had modest support when Obama signed the nuclear deal or avoided bombing in Syria. Where were the
'Ron Paul' voters there to support the President making dovish choices? Sure Syria was handled poorly but if we heard more support
it might change things.
4) And it is true the hard left is very-war but focused on other agenda. Witness Bernie Sanders was unable to beat HRC because
he is dove complaining about Cold War battles that is past history. And watch out Matt Duss is writing his speeches and Bernie
is taking them seriously.
I'm a liberal democrat and certainly would agree that President Obama was culpable for destroying our anti-war movement. It was
one of my grievances with him from the very beginning, as nothing about his rhetoric was ever about peace. It was only till the
very end of his last term that he ever learned any lessons on caution in intervention (But never about the folly of drone striking
civilians), and by then, it was too late.
Neo-militarism, which is where the costs of war are separated from engagement with it in order to reduce civil unrest over
military actions, wasn't something Obama created though. It was a reaction to the Vietnam War that was thoroughly ingrained in
the conscience of both parties. The only lesson they learned from that war is that if Americans see and hear of the suffering
of their soldiers, they won't be supportive of military pork and intervention.
And so we live in a really weird culture now where most people don't even know a soldier, where our soldiers are off to forever
war and in the system they are in is so distant that they don't understand civilian society either, and where the costs of war
are hidden. There is a political problem certainly, but the root of it is a cultural problem. We are fed patriotic myths of American
invincibility and Spartanism, and militarism has become one of the only unifying threads in being an "American", even though most
Americans have not even the faintest clue of how the military operates or what soldiers are like.
You can gather up all the anti-war activists across the political spectrum, and you still aren't going to find enough people
for a successful movement. And I'm not entirely sure how you can change the culture on this issue, as it would require undoing
a lifetime worth of programming and propaganda in every citizen.
It may take another cultural trauma from a war so disastrous that even the worst chicken hawks have to say, "Wow, we really
ruined everything here" for Americans to finally learn a lesson beyond how to sweep the nasty parts of war under the rug so the
public doesn't see them. I suppose North Korea is looking promising on that front.
I dislike the term anti-war. It sounds too much akin to a pacifists pose. I don't have any issues with people who are sincerely
pacifists. But there are times when war is required. And sometimes in my view, that includes the use of force for humanitarian
purposes.
I rest on the views that push the "clear and present danger" as old as it may be. And I do so without being ignorant of my
own concerns about the strategic threats that abound or potentially abound in the future, near and far.
Where's the anti-war movement -- they are in think tanks, congress, and CEO corporate positions seeking to atone for the mess
they made of our communities, country and veterans since the the misguided anti-war slogans of the late '60's and early '70's.
The consequence of an all volunteer military separates the community from a national sense of risk. I will dare utter, the
unspoken, Vietnam was not about some just cause or care about the Vietnamese or the national conscience. It was the basic fear
of personal sacrifice – period.
Ohh it was nicely clothed in all kinds of rhetorical discourse about war, peace loving Vietnamese, peace-love and understanding,
free speech, anti-colonialism . . . blah and blah.
As Dr. King would soon discover, lending his intellect to young white kids fears, sabotaged the real retrenchment of the consequence
of the nation's hypocrisy.
It takes a moral courage that has been bled out because there is in my view essentially no risk individual national investment.
If x hundred thousand are willing to sign-up for defense --
that is a choice of no account to citizens who don't.
There is a war going on and its right here at home.
If we want the freedom to comfortably drive to the convenience store to buy more plastic products from China, we must have war
to secure the oil, flow of foreign goods and exploitation of foreign labour necessary to maintain our predatory and non-productive
way of life. Peace requires a transformation of consciousness with the resultant total rejection of consumerism. The personal
sacrifice required for peace is the missing element.
"a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution."
I take strong exception to this. The second amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
Unlike what most people think, the "free State" mentioned here represents the 13 original states. Their "well regulated Militia"'s
could not be disarmed because that would allow the federal military to take away their sovereign freedom. The federal government
was never intended to be more powerful than the individual state's militias.
And Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution when describing Congress' responsibilities:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
The Constitution assumed that Congress would only raise an army when at war, and it would be dismantled almost immediately,
hence the "two Years" limit on funding the military.
The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional
thing we do. By a million miles.
As long a there is a volunteer military there will not be a strong anti war movement. Remember, the sixties and that so called
anti war movement which turned out to be nothing more that an anti draft movement. As soon as the military draft stopped those
so called activists shaved their beards, got a haircut, took a bath, and along with those who came back from Canada went on to
join daddy's business or law firm, with many migrating to wall street, eventually becoming the chicken hawks of the current era.There
would never have been an invasion of Iraq or the perpetual war if every family shared the burden of sending one of their sons
or daughters to act as cannon fodder. With the poverty draft only five percent of the younger generation are doing the fighting
and dying. Americans will not even give up attending football games where disrespect for the military takes the form of disrespecting
the flag, let alone join the military or put one of their children in harms way.
"The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional
thing we do. By a million miles."
I guess if one skips the preamble one might come to that conclusion. But the Purpose of the Constitution establishing a nation
spells out in very clear terms --
" . . . provide for the common defense . . ."
That is not a weak posture in any sense of the word. And no founder of government not those that followed understood that said
union was to be weak. Avoiding unnecessary wars or conflicts does not mean a weak defense. What they pressed was a weak federal
systems that would subvert internal freedoms for states and individuals.
It's hard to argue that no established international defense was sought -- when it states in very clear terms -- the nation
is created for the very purpose of defending it's existence.
A strong defense does not require a an over aggressive posture, but existence requires an ability to defend it. And right now
nothing more threatens our existence as much as weak immigration enforcement.
And I think the evidence for that is overwhelming. Most poignantly demonstrated by the events of 9/11. And there christians
of many brands are a threat to the US by aiding and abetting the violations of that sovereignty and using Christ as the excuse
to do so, even as that defense undermines their fellow citizens. That breed of christian ethos is certainly not new nor are its
tentacles of hypocrisy.
What I object to among both interventionists is that they both don't mind giving people in the country illegally a pass despite
their mutual claims of legal moral high bround.
Biggest sign of how weak we are in this article is the assumption built into this: "In addition, the few on the anti-war left
who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national
defense as outlined in the Constitution." I mean the assumption that one cannot oppose the whole institution for the overwhelming
secular empirical reasons that it endangers us, destroys our environment, impoverishes us, erodes our liberties, militarizes our
localities, degrades our culture, poisons our politics. See the case made at World Beyond War's website.
Superb article by Daniel Martin. The first step out of this mess is to fully acknowledge the scope of the mess: Democrats and
Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.
The anti-war movement is not listened to. In SF during a bombardment of Gaza, there were hundreds of anti-war protesters at City
Hall. The most liberal deliberative body in the US looked stone-faced and emotionless. When they finished, if on a cue, a Jewish
member of the Board tabled the agenda item, and it was never heard from again. Not one of these eleven lawmakers even asked a
question. Who said you cannot fight City Hall? They were right.
A lot of Dems stepped forward to oppose the Iraq War and they got plowed over for it politically.
I fully expect the same to happen to any Dems who divert their attention from stopping the other budget busting, middle-class
harming, anti-environmental, anti-women measures the GOP is currently pushing to make a futile attempt to stop whatever Trump
decides to do with our military.
The argument that there can be no anti-war movement without a draft to drive it is belied by the fact that no war in our history
generated more protests than the Bush Administration's build-up towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Where the mass base of any
anti-war movement seems to draw the line is not specifically at their kids but at the possibility of significant American casualties,
period. Hence, the absence of mass protest against drone warfare on the one hand, and the immediate and decisive push back by
the public against Congress authorizing Obama to "put boots on the ground" in Syria on the other.
My friends in the International Bolshevik Tendency ( http://bolshevik.org/
) argue for the classic united front in their anti-war organizing. Everyone opposed to War X should march together but retain
their right to free speech at the march and on the podium. So the official call for the march is not a laundry list, but marchers
and speakers are not subject to censorship or being shut down if they want to make connections that discomfit some Democratic
politician or movement hack. It makes more sense to me than either the single-issue, "we must ALL stay ON point" model or the
multi-issue, excessively intersectional and virtue-signaling one that arose in reaction to it.
No one seems to mention the power and importance of the mainstream, corporatized, media, which has supported all our wars and
associated aggressions in recent times, and which ignores and suppresses antiwar sentiments and opinion writers, as well as inconvenient
facts. This holds for the NYT, the WP, the WSJ and client newspapers as well as the TV news channels. The internet is evidently
not powerful enough to offset this national bias. Antiwar periodicals tend to be on the fringe in terms of mass circulation.
It also takes money in this society to get things done, and the anti-war "left"(or right) , in addition to having organizational
problems, lacks those resources. An antiwar super billionaire, if that is not a contradiction in terms, might make a dent by creating/promoting
TV and news channels.
EliteCommInc., be assured you will get your wars. Also be assured that they won't accomplish the aims they will be sold to accomplish.
Some of those who know the real reasons may well accomplish their private goals for a season. One day, the real cost to be paid
will come due, and it may not be a rude awakening, but nuclear death. So by all means, continue not to be against war, against
all the evidence. We are predisposed to war because our fallen nature leads us to dream of it.
Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.
That is because, sadly, American voters demand it.
As I've observed before – if you place a candidates militarism on a spectrum of 0 (Ghandi) to 100 (Hitler) American voters
are conditioned to prefer a candidate with a score 20 points higher than theirs to a candidate 5 points lower.
Kent makes a very good point. Yet this baby nation was somewhat torn between a Scylla and Charybdis of military readiness. The
Scylla was the fear of a "European" track that is to say the evolution into a Monarchy anchored on a powerful national army. The
Charybdis was the potential invasions by the powerful European states of Great Britain and Spain.
The opinion that anti-war people, particularly from the Vietnam era, did so because they didn't want to sacrifice is ludicrous.
It displays an ignorance of the sacrifices made, and the success of the war party to paint them in this manor. Veterans are appointed
a myriad of benefits, a plethora of memorials,holidays, endless honorable mentions. For the war resistors, nothing, unless one
could count the kind of scorn I see here, on an antiwar site ! It is not "selfish" to look both ways before crossing the street,
and perhaps choosing not to if it appears the risk is not worth the reward. In fact, this behavior defines "conservative". Militant
societies require centralization. The key to modern centralized militant power, is nuclear war. The existence of these weapons
produces a huge secrecy, and internal security state. They produce an insane populace whom believe the state is protecting them
from annihilation. Know this, our militant masters love that North Korea has the bomb. Sleep tight.
Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.
On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.
On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained
to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".
Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern
Lebanon and Syria.
War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis
"project".
Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming
Israeli military adventure.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war
in southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli
planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or
Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober
heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be
optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of
2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to
occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency
of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in
the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists
considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the
complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will
feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the
leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in
the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be
possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of
civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and
simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population
of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing
great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military
infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket
launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently,
regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and
electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including
through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has
such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with
open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN
peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement
of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding
heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The
Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need
to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian
infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli
cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched
missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation
paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are
spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles
may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for
launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems
certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's
exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite
the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster
Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the
victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of
relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast,
the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes
are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest
Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite
dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the
already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it
for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to
them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to
operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a
problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements,
where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good
time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb
says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press
coverage.
Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm
And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands
on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not
forfeit.
At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads"
or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos
in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.
But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a
hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic
Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and
might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that
could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort
of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.
At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've
read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama
blogger has a low opinion of the young man.
Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant
The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the
first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level
of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.
Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, you
threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in
Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a
unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of
government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the
timely fashion that we need."
How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those
deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this
very website, TomDispatch .
Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way
U.S. Africa Command and American
Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant
coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has
covered this story and the
secret bases , widespread " training
missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at
least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:
"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set
up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other
operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or
locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the
American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S.
global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest
debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."
By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we
read of ISIS-allied militants on the
lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting
that
"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United
States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across
Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major
African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are
increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into
broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the
results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."
Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S.
military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse),
even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts
of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).
Posted on October 20, 2017
October 20, 2017 Predictably, the news media spent most of the week examining words Donald
Trump may or may not have spoken to the widow of an American Green Beret killed in Niger, in
northwest Africa, in early October. Not only was this coverage tedious, it was largely
pointless. We know Trump is a clumsy boor, and we also know that lots of people are ready to
pounce on him for any sort of gaffe, real or imagined. Who cares? It's not news. But it was
useful to those who wish to distract Americans from what really needs attention: the U.S.
government's perpetual war.
The media's efforts should have been devoted to exploring – really exploring –
why Green Berets (and drones) are in Niger at all. ( This is typical of the
establishment media's explanation.)
That subject is apparently of little interest to media companies that see themselves merely
as cheerleaders for the American Empire. For them, it's all so simple: a US president (even one
they despise) has put or left military forces in a foreign country – no justification
required; therefore, those forces are serving their country; and that in turn means that if
they die, they die as heroes who were protecting our way of life. End of story.
Thus the establishment media see no need to present a dissenting view, say, from an analyst
who would question the dogma that inserting American warriors into faraway conflicts whenever a
warlord
proclaims his allegiance to ISIS is in the "national interest." Patriotic media companies
have no wish to expose their audiences to the idea that jihadists would be no threat to
Americans who were left to mind their own business.
Apparently the American people also must be shielded from anyone who might point out that
the jihadist activity in Niger and neighboring Mali is directly related to the US and NATO
bombing of Libya, which enabled al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants to overthrow the secular
regime of Col. Muammar Qaddafi. That Obama-Clinton operation in 2011, besides producing
Qaddafi's grisly murder and turning Libya into a nightmare, facilitated the transfer of weapons
and fanatical guerrillas from Libya to nearby countries in the Sahel – as well as Syria.
Since then the US government has been helping the French to "stabilize" its former colony Mali
with surveillance drones and Green Berets based in Niger. Nice work, Nobel Peace Prize winner
Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. (Citizen Trump was an early advocate of US intervention in Libya.)
Need I remind you that the US/NATO regime-change operation in Libya was based on a
lie ? Obama later said his failure to foresee the consequences of the Libya intervention
was the biggest
mistake of his presidency. (For more on the unintended consequences for the Sahel, see
articles here , here
, and here .)
So the media, which pretends to play a role in keeping Americans informed, have decided the
people need not hear the truth behind the events in Niger. Instead, "reporters" and "analysts"
perform their role as cheerleaders for the American Empire by declaring the dead men "heroes"
and focusing on the tragedy that has befallen their families. Public scrutiny of the military
operation is discouraged because it thought to detract from the Green Berets' heroism.
What makes them heroes? They were killed by non-Americans in a foreign land while wearing
military uniforms. That's all it takes, according to the gospel of what Andrew Bacevich calls
the Church
of America the Redeemer and its media choir.
But are they really heroes? We can question this while feeling sorrow for the people who
will never see their husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers again. Reporters and analysts who
emote over alleged heroism base their claim on the dubious proposition that the men were
"serving their country" and "protecting our freedom." A brief examination, however, is enough
to show this is not so, although the troops, their families, and many others believe it.
First, their "country," if by this term we mean the American people, did not call them to
"service," which itself a question-begging word. The source of the call was a collection of
politicians and bureaucrats (including generals) who wouldn't know the public interest from a
hole in the ground.
Second, US intervention in the Muslim world, which predates 9/11 and the creation of
al-Qaeda and ISIS, has not made Americans safe. On the contrary, it has put them at risk, as
the attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrated. Is it hard to believe that people will seek
vengeance against those whose government bombs them and starves their children, as the US
government did in Iraq all through the 1990s (to take just one example)?
Dying (and killing) for the Empire is not heroic. Allowing yourself to be ordered to
intervene in distant conflicts you surely don't understand is not worthy of admiration. What's
heroic is resisting the Empire.
Anyone who thought Trump would bring the troops back should now know better. He, of all
people, is not about to give up imperial power. The Guardianquotes
a former military officer saying, "Since [President] Trump took power, US forces deployed
around the world have had a lot more room to maneuver. Decisions about when and what to engage
have been devolved right down to unit level. Any soldier knows that if you give guys on the
ground more independence, then they will be that much more aggressive and will take more
risks."
At this point we can't expect the corporate media to quit propagandizing on behalf of the
war state and start informing the public of the harm "their" government has inflicted abroad
and at home. Fortunately, we have virtually costless access to alternative sources of
information about the politicians' and military's mischief. The conundrum is that most people,
having been fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda, won't turn to those sources until they
become suspicious of power.
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Dakota Wood
makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out
for how wrong it is:
Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities,
and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything
other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined
the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having
the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding
ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.
A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes
in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is
in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].
Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious
echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded
and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to
scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our
security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats
that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene
it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state
actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are
much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The
U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government
should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.
Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats,
but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that
our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief
that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few
U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that
the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan
as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice
to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually
had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference
in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo,
Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great
deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our
government's actions.
The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts
of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with
no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region.
The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to
topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or
to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia
in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a
war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya,
but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed
in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to
them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies.
Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen,
as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could
be "reassured."
It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker
countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other
power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is
needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and
the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's
frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the
affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies
than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries
where our government interferes.
'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.
At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every
desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia'
or 'N. Korea'.
It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention
quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to
buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously
does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our
best friends the Saudis).
Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working
FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They
resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.
Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly
stated in every poster and shout and beating.
@Auntie Analogue Every time
someone says to me, "Thank you for your service," above my head appears a cartoon thought
balloon containing a wisp of the smoke of exasperation. It's weird how or when this reverent,
pro-military bullshit toward veterans of the military (NB: very few ever in life-threatening
combat) began. It seemed to be right around when our wars were solely about Zionist
interests. My dad saw combat as an Army infantryman in the most ferocious battles of WWII. He
received Purple Hearts (injuries from grenades and bullets) and medals of valor. When I was
growing up he never discussed it unless you asked him questions. He never sought nor thought
he was ever entitled to any benefits from it. Never went to the VA. All of his friends were
the same way. It was only at the funeral of a close friend's dad that I learned that he had
been in the military, and the Battle of the Bulge! I used to see this guy daily for years and
stayed at their house all the time. Never once did he mention it. But back then, when being
in the military meant being in combat, it was just something all men were expected to do and
move on. Even if you were a major leaguer like Ted Williams you had to put your pro baseball
career on hold and go off to combat and then return and resume things. They didn't expect or
want any adulation. These kinds of guys would be embarrassed by it.
Nowadays every military veteran I know left with a disability and generous VA benefits and
wears his military service on his soldier. Guys and gals who spent 3 years at Fort Huachuca
or Lackland AFB or were "deployed" (PCS) to Okinawa, Japan or South Korea, expect to
worshipped because they "defended freedom and put their lives on the line for all
Americans".
The modern military, which became a jobs program, has been disasterous for white middle
America. It destroyed families and created a bunch of less-than-manly white males who are
worse than welfare queens living large on the MIC. But nowadays the military of today, 2017,
is very diverse and third world. Today you're more likely to see the children of immigrants
from West Africa or Latin America at basic training rather than some white kid.
I was a 15 year old freak when I first met the returning vets, at the city park where
freaks hung out. At that time I thought that I too would be sent to Vietnam, and, in a way, I
(and my friends) had prepared for that our whole lives–our parents had stories about
WWII, and many also had stories about Korea. Today I feel grateful that it didn't happen (the
draft ended the year I turned 19, and I got my adventure a different way). But at the time,
the stories of the returning vets were all about drugs, and hot women, and power, and not
about casualties. So, for some years I thought I had missed out on something. But think about
it: 50,000 dead, four times what we've lost in the Bush-Obama-Trump wars. I knew some of
those guys who died, and I also knew some of the guys who, like Fred, did things beyond what
most of us have done. But none of the latter seemed particularly happy about having done
those things. Overall, it seems that war sucks. A lot. Someone please inform Bill
Kristol.
The combat soldier who goes home or at least on leave and meets incomprehension is a
literary theme going back some decades if not centuries. All Quiet On The Western
Front has a main character who goes on leave and finds the civilians have no
comprehension of the war although they are enthusiastic about it, sometimes offering him
patronising advice about how to win it. Remarque's book was banned in the Third Reich, though
many German memoirs were not which extolled war as the highest of human experiences and
expressed contempt for the Etappenschweine (rear echelon MFs) and, slightly less
overtly, mere civilians. The scorned veteran who enjoyed the war or at least had trouble
dealing with postwar civilian life was part of the soil in which fascism took root.
I watched on line the portion of the Burns documentary that covered the period of time
that I was in Nam to get a sense of its accuracy since I had direct knowledge of that time
period. The coverage was completely perfunctory. I had hoped that the long multi-part
documentary of the war would be a well an actual documentary of the war for a change. You
know, showing not only the high level politics and overall strategy end, but also the nuts
and bolts of the war. Well, it really didn't even show the high level strategic aspects to
much detail, let alone the nuts and bolts. It was just one more navel gazing piece of crap.
So I didn't bother watching any of the other segments.
To see who was behind getting America into the Vietnam war , read the book JFK, THE CIA
and VIETNAM by L. Fletcher Prouty, can be had on Amazon.com. This book also tells who killed
JFK.
"... Similarly on the war issue, the only let-up in the constant barrage of negative press that Trump experienced was when he launched an attack on Syria, demonstrating once again that a consensus exists among the oligarchy on what instrument will be used to ensure their continued global dominance. ..."
"... Therefore, anti-Trump_vs_deep_state does not include a position against war and U.S. imperialism. ..."
"... The Democrat's are playing games with the people by pretending they are going to block increases in military spending during the appropriation stage of the process. And their criticisms of Trump's bellicosity and claims that he is reckless also are disingenuous because if they thought he was militarily reckless, they wouldn't have joined Republicans in supporting increased military spending. ..."
"... Both parties support militarism because both parties support the interests of the oligarchy and the oligarchy is interested in one thing!maintaining the empire. ..."
"... And to maintain the empire, they are prepared to fight to the last drop of our blood. ..."
With these words, Paul became one of the few voices to oppose the obscenity that is known as
U.S. war policy. But only two other senators joined him: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ron Wyden
(D-OR). But there is a wrinkle here: Paul is not concerned with the size of the military
budget. He's pointing his finger at the continuation of the Authorization to Use Military Force
Act (AUMF) of 2001, which was the "legal" basis for the U.S. global "war on terror." He wants
Congress to re-assess this legislation that has prompted endless wars abroad.
... ... ...
Nothing rehabilitates an unpopular president in capitalist "America" like
war. In fact, the only sustained negative press that Barack Obama received was when he seemed
reluctant to fully immerse the United States in direct efforts to cause regime change in Syria
by attacking that nation and committing to significant "boots on the ground." For the Neo-cons
and liberal interventionists driving U.S. policy, allowing U.S. vassal states to take the lead
in waging war in that country was an unnecessary and inefficient burden on those states.
Similarly on the war issue, the only let-up in the constant barrage of negative press
that Trump experienced was when he launched an attack on Syria, demonstrating once again that a
consensus exists among the oligarchy on what instrument will be used to ensure their continued
global dominance.
With the escalating decline in U.S. influence from the Bush administration through Obama and
now to Trump, U.S. global dominance increasingly depends on its ability to project military
power. Obama's "pivot to Asia," the veritable rampage by the United States through West Asia
and North Africa since 2003, the expansion of AFRICOM to offset Chinese influence in Africa,
the commitment to a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan to facilitate blocking China's
New Silk Road and to exploit Afghan mineral wealth all attest to the importance of continued
popular support for the permanent war agenda.
Therefore, the state is vulnerable because it has to generate public support for its war
agenda and that provides the domestic anti-war and anti-imperialist opposition with a strategic
opportunity.
The abysmal levels of popular support for Congress reflect a serious crisis of legitimacy.
That erosion of confidence in Congress must be extended to a critical stance on congressional
expenditures related to the Pentagon budget and the rationalization for military/security
spending. An ideological opening exists for reframing military spending and the war agenda for
what it is: An agenda for the protection of the interests of the 1 percent. And for disrupting
the acceptance of patriotic pride in U.S. military adventures beyond the borders of the
country.
Opposition to Trump has been framed in ways that supports the agenda of the
Democratic Party!but not the anti-war agenda. Therefore, anti-Trump_vs_deep_state does not include a
position against war and U.S. imperialism.
When the Trump administration proposed what many saw as an obscene request for an additional
$54 billion in military spending, we witnessed a momentary negative response from some liberal
Democrats. The thinking was that this could be highlighted as yet another one of the supposedly
demonic moves by the administration and it was added to the talking points for the Democrats.
That was until 117
Democrats voted with Republicans in the House !including a majority of the Congressional
Black Caucus!to not only accept the administration's proposal, but to exceed it by $18 billion.
By that point, the Democrats went silent on the issue.
The progressive community and what passes for the Left was not that much better. When those
forces were not allowing their attention to be diverted into re-defining opposition to White
supremacy in the form of the easy opposition to the clownish, marginal neo-Nazi forces, they
were debating the violence of Antifa. And since hypocrisy has been able to reconcile itself
with liberalism, they didn't see that their concerns with the violence of Antifa was in
conflict with their support for violent interventions by the U.S. state in places like Libya
and Syria. So for that sector since war and violence had been normalized unless it is carried
out by unauthorized forces like oppressed peoples,Antifa forces and nations in the crosshairs
of U.S. imperialism!it is opposed. Why bother with the issues of war and militarism. And so the
anti-war and anti-imperialist position was not included as part of anti-Trump_vs_deep_state!
The Democrat's are playing games with the people by pretending they are going to block
increases in military spending during the appropriation stage of the process. And their
criticisms of Trump's bellicosity and claims that he is reckless also are disingenuous because
if they thought he was militarily reckless, they wouldn't have joined Republicans in supporting
increased military spending.
Both parties support militarism because both parties support the interests of the
oligarchy and the oligarchy is interested in one thing!maintaining the empire.
And to maintain the empire, they are prepared to fight to the last drop of our
blood. But we have a surprise for them.
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the
2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
"... For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings. ..."
"... In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so. ..."
"... So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination. ..."
"... By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why. ..."
It is my favorite moment. Of World War I, that is. The one that stays with me.
Christmas, 1914: Nearly a million men are already dead, and the war is barely four months
old. Suddenly, and ultimately in unison, the opposing German and British troops begin singing
Christmas carols. At first light, German troops emerge unarmed from their trenches, and walk
out into "no-man's land." Despite fearing a ruse, the Brits eventually joined their sworn
enemies in the churned earth between the trench lines. Carols were sung, gifts of cigarettes
exchanged -- one man even brought out a decorative tree. It only happened once. Though the bloody,
senseless war raged across three more Christmases, the officers on each side quashed future
attempts at a holiday truce. And yet, for that brief moment, in the ugliest of circumstances,
the common humanity of Brits and Germans triumphed. It must have been beautiful.
Ultimately, nearly ten million men would die in battle. For all that, little was settled. It
rarely is. The ruling classes still ruled, the profiteers profited, and Europe went to war
again not twenty years later. So it went, and so it goes.
Nonetheless, World War I boasted countless skeptics and anti-war activists both in and out
of uniform. Their poetry and prose was dark, but oh was it ever powerful. Siegfried Sassoon and
Wilfred Owen from the Brits; Erich Maria Remarque for the stoic Germans; and our own Ernest
Hemingway. A lost generation, which sacrificed so much more than youth: their innocence. They
call to us, these long dead dissenters, from the grave.
They might ask: Where are today's skeptical veterans? Tragically, silence is our only
ready response.
It was not always so in America. During the brutal Seminole Indian Wars, 17 percent of army
officers resigned in disgust rather than continue burning villages and hunting natives down
like dogs in Florida's Everglades' swamps. Mark Twain's cheeky prose demolished the
Philippine-American colonial war at the turn of the century (some 30 years after he briefly
served in the Missouri state militia during the Civil War). Hemingway, laid the truth bare
after being wounded in the First Great War while serving as a Red Cross ambulance driver. And
Major General Smedley Butler -- two-time Medal of Honor recipient though he was -- emerged from the
Caribbean "Banana Wars" to admit he'd been naught but a "high class muscle man for Big
Business," a "gangster for capitalism."
For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut
and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him
the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the
courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings.
Today, despite a few brave attempts, we are treated to nothing of the sort. Why, you
ask?
To begin with, most of the above mentioned wars were fought by draftees, militiamen, and
short-term volunteers: in other words, citizen-soldiers. Even now, the identity of
"citizen-soldier" ought to emphasize the former term: citizen . It doesn't. Now, as we
veterans are constantly reminded, we are warriors . Professionals. Hail Sparta!
In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less
than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding
Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able
citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway
lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler
too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so.
In truth, the "citizen-soldier" is dead, replaced -- to the sound of cheers -- by self-righteous
subalterns hiding beneath the sly veil of that ubiquitous corporate idiom: professionalism.
Discipline, motivation, teamwork -- these are all sleek, bureaucratic terms certain to mold
terrific middle managers, but they remain morally bare. And, ultimately, futile.
So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as
little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the
increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems
a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political
loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination.
Only don't rule out cowardice. Who isn't fearful for their career, income, and family
stability? It is only natural. After all, this business -- despite protestations to the
contrary -- does not tend to value intellectualism or creative thinking. Trust me. Besides, in
this struggling transitory economy, the military "welfare state" is a tempting option for
America's declining middle class. Ironic, isn't it, that the heavily conservative officer corps
loves their socialized medicine and guaranteed pensions?
Under the circumstances, perhaps silence is understandable. But it is also complicity.
By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse,
and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our
professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober
reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades,
add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why.
Perhaps a good officer suppresses such doubt, maintains a stoic, if dour, dignity, and
silently soldiers on. As for me, I am not made of such stuff, and more's the pity. I buried
seven men in the fields of the Forever War, casualties of combat and the muted sufferings of
suicide.
Their banal sacrifice demands explanation. They deserve as much. For those lonely few, we who publicly dissent, the audience is scant, interest meagre, and
our existence: solitary.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S.
government.)
*** This article has been edited to reflect Mark Twain's brief stint in the Missouri state
militia, not the regular Confederate army; and the fact that Ernest Hemingway served the Red
Cross during World War I.
This is way too simplistic interpretation of the events, but still she shed
a light on the problems of anti war movement in the USA. As sson as soch movemetn
grow to represnt a threat to status wquo they instantly get in cross hears of intelligence
agencies. Arrests follow.
Bill Ayers part is better and he managed to land a couple of quotes with rather
deep observations about the nature of the problems with the US media.
Notable quotes:
"... UnAmerican Activities ..."
"... "Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy." ..."
"... "The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head." ..."
"... The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan ..."
"... Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ..."
"... The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible ..."
In 1970, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that emerged
out of Students for a Democratic Society, issued a "Declaration of a State of
War" against the US government, and shortly thereafter began carrying out bombings
against symbols of US Empire, including even the Pentagon itself. Targeting
mostly government buildings and several banks -- and taking care not to injure
human beings -- the actions were designed to "bring the war home" in order to
highlight imperial injustices against the oppressed, and the egregious violence
of US imperialism.
... ... ...
"[The Media's role was] so important that the US military learned to never
again allow independent journalists into their war zones," Dohrn explained.
"[Significantly], the mainstream media never again allowed images of human people,
families, women or children who suffer the consequences of US bombings or invasions."
With the dominant media avoiding these responsibilities, one of the many
roles the WUO played was, according to Dohrn, to communicate to the public the
ways in which people, cultures and whole civilizations were suffering under
US air strikes and CIA repression.
"The media was plenty corporatized during the '60s and '70s, and it was the
anti-war movement in concert with the Black Freedom Movement and the returning
vets who changed the hearts and minds of the US people from 1965-1968," she
said.
WUO member David Gilbert told Truthout he believes it was the strength of
the anti-war movement, and the US losses in Vietnam, that finally pushed sectors
of the media to start reporting some of the truth about the war.
He echoes Dohrn's point that the media was already corporatized back then
(though the conglomerates were not nearly as large as they are today), and the
pro-war bias of the media was just as real as it is now.
"An example was the use of napalm bombs, designed to cling to and burn through
flesh, on civilians," Gilbert said. "The mainstream media completely whited-out
these horrible war crimes."
In fact, in January 1967 a radical magazine, Ramparts, published a series
of color photos of children and babies burned by napalm.
"That's the point when some of us became absolutely frantic to stop the war,"
Gilbert said. "But it also exposed the mainstream media for what they were covering
up."
According to Gilbert, by 1967 a whole network of small radical papers had
a combined readership of roughly 6 million, making up a crucial wing of the
movement. Of course, it was therefore ripe for targeting by intelligence agencies.
"An important part of the FBI and police offensive to beat the radical movements
was to destroy the radical media, a campaign that's detailed in Geoffrey Rips's
UnAmerican Activities ," he said.
By the late '60s, largely due to constant pressure from the increasingly
powerful anti-war movement, portions of the media started to come around to
presenting some of the realities of the Vietnam War. Plus, by then, it was clear
the US was likely going to lose the war, US brutality abroad was being exposed
to the world, and the political upheaval on the home front was becoming white
hot.
Gilbert went on to explain how, then as now, "The hawks waged a concerted
campaign to blame that on 'the liberal media,' to the point that this lie has
become accepted today."
At that time, the myth of the "liberal media" accomplished several things
for the right wing, according to Gilbert. "It's covered up the truth that the
US military machine was defeated by a Global South nation, it's convinced the
public that the 'truth lies somewhere in between' the hawks and the media, when
in fact the media didn't do nearly enough to expose the injustice and horrors
of the war, and it's intimidated the media, which fell into line as pure propaganda
organs in subsequent wars."
Naomi Jaffe, one of the WUO's founding members who joined in solidarity with
movements for Black self-determination, agreed with Gilbert in that pressure
from the anti-war movement was a leading factor that pushed the media to share
more images of the war. However, she was quite critical of the overall role
the media played during Vietnam.
"Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a hint of independent reporting ever questioned
it until long after the war was over," Jaffe told Truthout. "The body counts?
Regular reports of how the US was winning by killing more 'Viet Cong' every
week than could possibly have existed overall."
Bill Ayers, who is married to Dohrn, was also a leader and cofounder of the
WUO.
"Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification
and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous:
the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense
of freedom and democracy."
For example, Ayers says, the New York Times announced that it saw the "light
at the end of the tunnel" -- the turning point when the war would at long last
be turned around and won -- days before the decisive defeat during the Tet Offensive
in 1968. In 1966, Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor and the most trusted journalist
of his generation, presented a fawning interview with the puppet and fascist
Nguyen Cao Ky and called him the George Washington of Viet Nam.
"The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe
the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against
the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing
its efforts and turning reality on its head."
Ayers said it wasn't the media that played a role in helping end the war
in Vietnam, it was, by far, the decisive actions of the Vietnamese people themselves
"in defeating the most potent military force on earth." He pointed out, "Vietnam
was engaged in an authentic social revolution, deep and broad, in which peasants
and workers were massively engaged in the overthrow of colonialism and foreign
control as well as feudal relationships and capitalism itself."
Moreover, Ayers said, this revolution was part of "the anti-colonial and
Third World moment, a context that allowed us to understand the revolution in
Vietnam as part of a world phenomenon sweeping from South Africa to Egypt to
Chile to Indonesia."
He also pointed to "the important role of the underground -- popular or alternative
or movement -- press in the US, and its ability to tap international sources
like the Cuban media, for example, to uncover the truth of events."
He sees the typical narrative -- the idea that the military draft made the
war real in the eyes of the US public, and the media cemented that reality,
helping to end the war -- as skewed. It "buys into a simplistic and largely
self-serving explanation," Ayers said. "The Vietnamese revolution and war resistance
at home impacted the media coverage, not the other way around."
Today's struggle for 'America First' foreign policy on Capitol Hill.
Before the tragic events in Charlottesville on August 12th, President Donald Trump had received a deserved amount of scrutiny for
his
heated rhetoric pertaining to the North Korean nuclear issue. This recent swing in media coverage is regrettable, given that
Trump's foreign policy statements and actions matter more, or should matter more, to Americans.
More Americans (not to mention
foreign civilians ) have been killed or wounded by American foreign policy
interventionism since September 11, 2001, than by
foreign-born terrorists
white nationalists , and hate crimes combined. Sadly, underplaying
the consequences of war
overseas
may be a good thing these days, since over-exposure has often yielded perverse incentives for interventionism, to which Trump
has
shown himself quite susceptible.
The need for new political incentives that reinforce President Trump's "America First" instincts has not been lost on his non-interventionist
supporters. In an
article for
The American Conservative on June 26th, William Lind called for the creation of an "America First Caucus" to serve as a non-interventionist
beachhead on Capitol Hill similar to how the
"Military Reform Caucus" of the 1980s served as a congressional pressure point for effectiveness and efficiency in the defense
budget. According to Lind, this caucus would provide support for the President when he took a non-interventionist course and criticize
the President when he erred on the side of intervention. By adopting "America First" in its name, the caucus would insulate itself
from neoconservative charges of being "weak" while simultaneously shielding itself (
in theory at least ) from criticism
by the President.
So what would an America First Caucus on Capitol Hill look like? Unlike the "Military Reform Caucus" of the 1980s, which boasted
a bipartisan membership of more than 130 at its height, Lind argues that an America First Caucus would need to be explicitly partisan
(a "Republican anti-intervention caucus") and confined to non-interventionist conservatives on the grounds that a bipartisan caucus
would be impractical in the current political climate. Although he did not identify specific congressmen, Lind presumably had Senator
Rand Paul and Representatives Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and John "Jimmy" Duncan in mind as prime candidates for
this caucus.
Which America First?
One immediate problem that the new America First Caucus would face would be how to define which brand of 'America First' anti-interventionism
they would want to espouse. Would it mirror the philosophy of the namesake of the America First Committee (AFC) of 1940-1941? Or
would it use the updated version used by the
Trump Administration? Given that the current administration has
adopted policies , and is considering
additional policies that conflict with its own definition of 'America First,' it might be wiser for the new caucus to look to
the original AFC for inspiration.
Founded on September 4,1940, the AFC was a bipartisan anti-interventionist movement opposed to American involvement in Europe
during World War II which they saw as a continuation of the mindless bloodletting of World War I. In America First: The Battle
Against Intervention 1940-1941 (1953), Wayne Cole
identified four founding principles
and four objectives of the AFC (listed below).
Principles:
The United States must build an impregnable defense for America. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully
attack a prepared America. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war. "Aid short
of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
Objectives:
To bring together all Americans, regardless of possible differences on other matters, who see eye-to-eye on these principles.
(This does not include Nazists, Fascists, Communists, or members of other groups that place the interest of any other nation above
those of our own country.) To urge Americans to keep their heads amid rising hysteria in times of crisis. To provide
sane national leadership for the majority of the American people who want to keep out of the European war. To register this
opinion with the President and with the Congress.
What is perhaps most striking about the principles and objectives of the AFC is the extent to which it, with a minimal amount
of updating, can be borrowed by non-interventionists today. Below is a modified list of these principles and objectives that an America
First Caucus could use as a guiding charter.
Principles:
The United States must maintain an impregnable defense for America. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully
attack a prepared America without incurring an unacceptably high cost for such an attack on itself. American democracy can
be preserved only by keeping out of the next undeclared war of choice. "Meddling short of war" weakens national defense at
home and threatens to involve America in war abroad." The only way to neutralize the threat Al-Qaeda and Daesh (ISIL) pose
to the United States is through smart and effective diplomacy. This diplomacy must contain the following features: A withdrawal of
all U.S. military forces from Islamic countries over the next three years, prioritizing cooperation with all foreign governments
in lawfully undermining these organizations, and aggressively promoting nuclear non-proliferation in accordance to international
law (i.e. without resorting to the use of military force or implying the use of military force).
Objectives:
To bring together all Americans, regardless of possible differences on other matters, who see eye-to-eye on these principles.
To urge Americans to keep their heads amid rising hysteria in times of crisis. To provide sane national leadership
for the majority of the American people who want to keep out of the next undeclared war of choice. To register this opinion
with the President and with the rest of our colleagues in Congress.
What can realistically be accomplished?
What could an America First Caucus realistically accomplish? At first glance, not much. Its small size (initially no more than
five or so members expected), partisan make up (all Republicans), and declining membership (Rep. Jimmy Duncan will not seek re-election
in 2018) would make it difficult for its voice to be heard amid the
cacophony of voices on
Capitol Hill.
That said there are reasons to be optimistic. It would contain a former presidential candidate and prominent conservative U.S.
Senator who occupies a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Sen. Rand Paul), two House members on the Oversight and Government
Reform Subcommittee on National Security (Rep. Justin Amash and Rep. Jimmy Duncan), two House members with military service (Rep.
Walter Jones and Rep. Jimmy Duncan), one House member on the Committee on Armed Services (Rep. Walter Jones), one House member that
is not up for re-election and thus has nothing to lose (Rep. Jimmy Duncan), and one House member who is an
all-around non-interventionist anchor (Rep. Thomas Massie).
Another reason for optimism is that it would be the only caucus of its kind on the Hill pushing this message. That message, that
the lives of American service members are not cheap and that America should practice nation-building at home instead of intervening
abroad, is popular. The voters who bore the human cost of American interventionism
put Trump in the White House.
There are several courses of action the caucus could take that would stand a reasonable chance of succeeding. These actions could
also create new political incentives in Washington that discourage interventionism.
The first would be to introduce or support
existing legislation
that would repeal both the
2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and the
2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (AUMFs). Support for repealing the 2001 AUMF is
growing within the 115th
Congress and the 2002 AUMF has its share of
bipartisan critics
. Yet these congressional misgivings have not translated into an organized opposition. An America First Caucus would provide this
while also lending a distinctly non-interventionist voice to those who simply wish to replace these AUMFs with new ones that are
not necessary to protect the country (i.e. let Syria, Iran, Russia, and Turkey fight ISIL in Syria and let Iraq and Iran fight ISIL
in Iraq).
The second would be to introduce a resolution in the House re-establishing the tradition of reading
George Washington's Farewell Address in the House
at the beginning of every new session of Congress. Unlike the Senate, which currently holds to this tradition, the House
discarded this tradition in 1979. Although
a symbolic move, it would nevertheless bring attention to the broader non-interventionist message by making the America First Caucus
the public voice responsible for bringing back this otherwise uncontroversial and bipartisan tradition.
A third course of action would be to introduce legislation amending the National Security Act of 1947 and renaming the Department
of Defense as the Department of War. In his inaugural
address Trump noted that the U.S. "defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our own." By pushing for this name change,
the America First Caucus would force a public conversation regarding whether our foreign and defense policy is really "defensive"
in nature.
Lastly, the America First Caucus would provide a congressional forum where deviant foreign policy views such as non-interventionism
and intelligent diplomacy can be heard, expressed, and debated. This would include providing a congressional audience to like-minded
advocates, policy practitioners, and scholars.
Challenges
Carrying the non-interventionist banner and keeping Trump accountable would not be easy. Republicans railed against the Obama
Administration's foreign policy for eight years on the grounds that it was not sufficiently belligerent in rhetoric or in action.
Trump shares this sentiment and seems intent on conducting his foreign policy in a way that highlights the contrast in bellicosity
between himself and Obama. Although this bellicosity has been largely
confined
to the
diplomatic sphere, the president's
announcement last week
regarding Afghanistan, along with his ordered attacks on the Syrian government back in April, shows that he is willing to convert
these sentiments into action.
Where this bellicosity could turn into a real shooting war would be with Iran. Trump seems
intent on undermining the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama Administration. His hostility to the agreement, and to Iran
in general, is shared by both parties, particularly his "never Trump" Republican detractors. Terminating the Iran deal would accomplish
three things. First, it would immediately unite an otherwise fractured GOP in Congress behind the president. Second, it would immediately
isolate the U.S. from the rest of the international community and expose American non-proliferation efforts as having been conducted
in bad faith. Lastly, it would pave the way for a shooting war with Iran which a GOP-controlled Congress would support.
Compounding this problem further is that none of the individual members of an America First Caucus supported the Iran nuclear
deal (albeit for different and less belligerent reasons). An America First Caucus might not be able to alter the political incentives
for Trump regarding the Iran nuclear deal. Then again, it might not have to. If the caucus can highlight an issue where Trump can
both secure a political "win" and pivot back to his domestic agenda!such as withdrawing U.S. military personnel from most of its
overseas bases
and using the savings to pass a Trump-endorsed transportation bill!it might be sufficient to redirect the president's attention
away from Iran. This would give those who are more favorably disposed to the Iran nuclear deal in the
administration Capitol
Hill , and
the Beltway
time to convince the president that undoing the deal is more work than it is worth.
Given the lack of major legislative accomplishments, and the likelihood that
tax and immigration reform proposals would
meet the same fate as the recent healthcare bill, Trump is more likely to secure a political "win" in the realm that past presidents
have retreated to when their domestic agendas are stymied by Congress: foreign policy. These perverse political incentives towards
interventionism, particularly as they pertain to Iran, will be the most difficult challenge facing an America First Caucus.
With the
departure
of Steve Bannon from the White House and the administration
opting to deploy more American forces to Afghanistan, the
need for a new set of political incentives towards non-interventionism has never been greater. Trump was elected because the
American electorate believed he, and not Hillary Clinton, would put the well-being of Americans first. It is time members of Congress
stand up and hold him to that promise.
Jonathan Tkachuk is a former congressional staffer for a House Republican. He has a M.A. in Diplomacy (Counter-Terrorism) from
Norwich University.
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the
military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map.
Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended
to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's
book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating
on the ground in the Middle East.
Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum
on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett
received a glowing review in the
Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend,
Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.
Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially
two realms : The Core, which
consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap,
a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that
characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.
These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about
rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting
military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding,"
he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."
For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the
National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary
re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security,
writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in
particular sums up his vision:
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure.
Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates
markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."
Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued
under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to
places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.
Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and
had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed
around his "SysAdmin" concept.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.'
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from
1997 to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It
seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts
we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose
their own."
The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's
cure would be any better than the disease," wrote
Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her
department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American
liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."
Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means
that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the
entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy
of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it,
along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential
priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.
Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war
are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That
secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership,
argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the
world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the
cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.
Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology
for the US military-industrial complex.
But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work
was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is
visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized
the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.
The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire. that the rest of the world
suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them.
Those wringing their hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His caving was entirely predictable
because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it clear by now that "America First" is as much as lie as
"Change You Can Believe In"?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and covert means.
As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits of restoring ties. The potential
for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will play a big part in post-Putin politics.
If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road transport links (via proxies like ISIS) , the Russian
economy will sink and pro-Western candidates will gain much support.
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped by domestic U.S.
policy issues.
Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))
Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is idiotic enough to start
up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to import overpriced fracked gas all the way from the
US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions will accelerate the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome.
And even if the Germans were to cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra gas to Asia
anyway. So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.
If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and cry about the bill's negative
impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an excellent groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the
US SC to attack the constitutionality of the bill.
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I immediately thought - Whoa,
if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S. government is in way more trouble than I understood.
Navigating a soft coup takes a great deal of skill to avoid, but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering
demands from the White House and Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S. should be warned
a hard coup isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just such an event.
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to?
When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in mind the deep state goal
of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous delusion of the highest order but it is one that
is actively being put into practice. The actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to
one thing: war.
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing; I think he knew that the
Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN PAWN (RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign.
However by signing the bill with notations stating its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked
this latest RP label attempt and attendant witch hunt.
And assuming the SC thinks as little of the two bills legislative incursions into the exec domain as I do, it can
be tossed back to both houses of Congress (with a 2018 election cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from
Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful God, how can you represent your constituents when you clearly don't
have a grasp of your own job description??
Now I have to fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of you." Remember he has already raised
75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his own and beat a 1.3 billion DNC machine. I do not see him
as a great candidate but I do see that every single current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid
for by business/MIC interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him the
opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I will contribute to his effort
to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well. There will be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping
him.
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the North Koreans to do something
rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash attack then being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean
resistance.
the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis of Evil" or "the Free
World"
There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people see the futility and danger
of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen will repeat what they are paid to say as the waters
rise above their lips.
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid of the PTB? or he's a fraud
like Obama going along with the PTB?
Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing - gruel for the knuckleheads.
There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real warmonger for Zion. The "real" Republicans
(and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would love President Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one possibility he didn't really explore
was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then upon returning from its recess need to reenact the entire measure
after getting lots of heat from constituents for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote
was due to many congresscritter's assumption that Trump would do just that.
For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted links to 6 incisive articles
also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all together pointing to a Deep State flailing its arms in the
deep end of the Hubris Pool realizing its drowning in its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never will--it
will break the mirror before allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing Returns is finally laying the lumber
to the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave if he knew how his
American Century was being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.
>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining office. Examples: Citizens United
and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate debates.
>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that these populists were phonies but
Trump is the real deal?
>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more importantly, Hillary didn't counter
Trump by taking a more populist approach.
>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election. The media dutifully covered Trump
as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had a better chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign
(see: NYPost:
Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever despite having every advantage.
>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so close to Hillary who was considered
to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served Hillary by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was
the first to question if Obama was foreign born.
>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?
>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek to prosecute Hillary. The
strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely
that this was coordinated.
>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First' and/or fuel the scaremongering over
Russia:
> The missile attack on Syria (despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria in 2013) and sword dancing
with the Saudis (WTF?);
> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after he did;
> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly attacking Sessions; etc.
> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the election;
Use of the terms "Isolationist" and "Isolationism" within the context of US History differs little from the use of the
terms "Conspiracy Theory," Conspiracy Theorist," and "Revisionist"--all are used in an attempt to degrade the credibility
of an individual or organization. A priori, everyone aside from First Peoples is an Internationalist as commerce with
other nations of the world isn't optional--it's mandatory, thus the phrase within the Declaration about telling the world
why. Rather, Isolationist is used to tar someone against Imperialism, the best examples being the very heated debate
during the 1930s over the various Neutrality Acts when the hoi polloi last had some vestige of control over the federal
government. (Pacifist was also a derogatory term used then for similar reasons.) Did Trump say he would close US borders
to one and all--people, goods, financial instruments? No, of course not; so, he cannot be labeled an Isolationist. Now,
is he what's known as a Nativist promoting an America First Nativism? During his campaign, he did use rhetoric of that
sort, but his actions in office don't provide confirmation. (The 1932 presidential election also gives an excellent example
of how the terms Internationalist and Isolationist are used politically, with FDR steadfastly refusing to acknowledge
his Internationalism thanks to the divisive League of Nations debate after WW1.)
Essentially, to be an informed citizen of almost any nation, one needs the equivalent of a PhD in their national and
world history, with minors in philosophy, anthropology and economics, which is why the citizenry seems so ill-informed--they
are!--and easily led by the nose.
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical
to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military
at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become
very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is
well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.
Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and
great issues at home.
Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar
as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal)
though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy
and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.
Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington
intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the
Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China
and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.
While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal
remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments
and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.
Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial
regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.
Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US
'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal
troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.
Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed
to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between
revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests,
empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.
Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary
agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.
Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries.
Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional
alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.
Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor.
However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals
and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed
political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political
independence.
Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism
The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and
change the contours of empire.
The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced
a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.
Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent'
(finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated
abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security
industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of
its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and
the import of cheap consumer goods.
Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because
of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in
post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate
in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the
provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist
superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to
strangle the revolutionary governments.
The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology
With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct
military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and
China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the
Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia.
Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire
builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing
a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated
'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.
Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South
America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by
imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned
as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating
high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.
Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire
of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of
conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies
for its profits. US global power eroded.
The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century
Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling.
China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and
state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced
the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from
Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer
goods to North America and the EU.
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout
Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent
agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand
for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in
the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.
In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation
in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist
policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The
EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages,
leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.
The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s,
pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked
on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal
intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.
Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and
South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness.
As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The
US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar
global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.
The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option
The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many
'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy
intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists
incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.
Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the
military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the
policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars,
accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal
delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.
As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater
militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists,
who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total
immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.
A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America
Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,
Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial
'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to
undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.
The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their
newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars
to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources
without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President
Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent.
The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.
Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels
of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis
and rising class conflict.
Short-Lived Success in the Middle East
The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed
to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed
amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.
Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat
toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control
of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove
US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.
Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack
Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy
yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.
Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over
by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes,
the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region
have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge
in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats,
fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.
Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress
its unreliable allies and mercenaries.
What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar
declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is
that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building
blocks.
The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil
society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees
and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies
in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.
A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories
have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the
most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate
US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya,
Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes.
Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed
the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability
to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from
the incredible global mess they created
They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered
countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in
the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war,
unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of
viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.
The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering
many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within
the US.
The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some
'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.
Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts
by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts
to score a conquest or temporary military victory.
Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible
military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly,
to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame
the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt
for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump.
This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove
these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.
Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War
While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance
on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as
the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into
a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk
of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.
The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important
description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear
program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability
of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power
of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would
expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia
with a 'surprise' first strike.
The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government
installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen
for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable
military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military
bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo
and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked
conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have
been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.
Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been
sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This
means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed
by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern
Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory
over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria
is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.
The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists,
especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between
Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.
Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists
launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of
the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning
of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian
aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the
Black Sea against Crimea.
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a
war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to
create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North
Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state
to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.
The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea
in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic
and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful,
but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown
more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development
bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement
in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and
wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.
China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue.
This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power
. barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize
its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.
As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically
installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous
pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked
on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises
with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic
missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the
situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale
down their nuclear weapons program.
The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative
military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea
and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed
its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance
and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement
of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the
capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's
land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive
missile capacity.
With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive
missiles to complement the build-up in the West.
The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most
alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region.
The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an
imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea
but really aims at China.
South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD
system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice
its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange
for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses
in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy,
the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and
investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic
exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face
shut down.
In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment
and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean
people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful
economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves
on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.
China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity.
The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed
by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial
imports.
Conclusion
The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it
continues to pursue its deluded strategies.
On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest
by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic
decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could
devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.
Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former
Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.
The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound
changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American
Century'.
Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington.
They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them
to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists
of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to
successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.
This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a
global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive
offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities
of China and Russia.
The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the
critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing
to launch a globally destructive war.
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian
army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything
the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise
it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always
operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at
all times. Read More
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia?
Even the American public isn't that stupid.
There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:
1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack
on Iran,
2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly
3) the paper tiger would lose another one.
Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai
franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's
all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt
boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything
to westerners, you know . Read More
No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to
them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and
Russia stand in their way.
Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.
But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We
would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money
when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle
East will take the priority.
So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote
on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid
and they didn't take the bait.
China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would
play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics.
And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion
with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were
granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping
force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the
national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of
everyone.
Robert
Magill ,
April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n
China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer
goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers
like Walmart.
Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds
to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer
goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger
a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke
landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen
each and soldier on.
One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.
What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus
collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that
it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear
strikes hitting it ? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai
Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese
This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The
Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought
against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill.
After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.
Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.
The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed
in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!
from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong.
45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from
the usa.
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for
us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory
is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory
calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist ,
April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army,
who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context:
Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal,
otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US
troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere
and at all times. What an idiotic statement.
The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.
200 Words
@Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that
war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years.
Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago
on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable.
Read More
Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported
by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed
a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics
on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens,
etc.
Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the
impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan
versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76
,
April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?
Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of
the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump
In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud
between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the
U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against
a mutual ally to Russia and China.
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come
to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million
Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense
when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects
as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism
and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess
that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an
Amrrican citizen yesterday .
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
"... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime
minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats
Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated
by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at
airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?
It matters on every street in Britain.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called
Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside
the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've
seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.
But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more
intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.
It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across
the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic
world.
The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face
of Saudi and Israeli opposition.
Qatar is diplomatically closer
to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties
prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.
The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence
of political Islam full stop.
Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to -
participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.
Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation
with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise
to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.
But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move
as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official
tweeted the spat was "the
prelimary result of the sword dance".
The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After
September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising
terrorist finance. But, as
a US cable released
by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant
source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".
Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation
and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.
However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably
by
executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.
In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they
extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism.
Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office
investigation into corruption at
BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.
We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled
attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.
One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa,
it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that
their "caliphate" will soon be over.
If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the
survivors as they fan out to do damage here?
In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board
with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter
rhetorical fight with each other.
As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump
flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the
moderates won.
But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones
in the Gulf will end. The
foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement
of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep
funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.
Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last
December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing
both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.
Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to
match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.
May 31, 2017 "Men in dark suits" rule the US – Putin on Deep State
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with French publication Le Figaro, has revealed
that a US president is more often than not just a figurehead of government.
Mar 6, 2017 Zakharova warns of Orwellian US Media 2.03.17
Have a listen to what Zakharova has to say in relation to "fake news". Is there a deliberate
campaign to undermine trust in all traditional media, so that the public can no longer form an
opinion?
"... I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." ..."
"... Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries. ..."
"... I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent! ..."
"... The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her. ..."
"... "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt." ..."
Of course, this begs an obvious question. Traitor to what? In an "America" which no longer
has a definable culture, language,
ethnos
, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?
The open celebration of what any other generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully
self-discrediting is the Russian "interference" narrative.
John Harington
famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare
call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly
denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia
isn't very powerful within our government and society.
In contrast, our government and media seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile
actions by foreign governments against the United States, but celebrate them.
To criticize any of these countries, or to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters
in this country, is political death. Of course, that is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently
strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.
Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual loyalty would be a massive improvement.
The only reason we can't call men like these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever
considered themselves Americans in any meaningful way. What could be more ridiculous than considering
Chuck
Schumer "a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?
It's not double loyalty; that would be giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because
Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know
that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.
Of course, there is a Trump associate who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that.
The main focus of the investigation into "Russian collusion" is focusing on former
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem
to be to be increasingly
extreme and anti-European Turkey of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn even
wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey on election day itself. [
Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support , by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November
8, 2016]
As Turkey is quite openly facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's
a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey
go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian websites [
Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure , WND, February 14, 2017].
The MSM is utterly indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated
to destroying General Flynn personally.
Part of it simply could be the defense industry and the
"Deep State" need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and
power. As it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.
The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat. Russia is funding, or
at least is tied to, several alternative media sources such as RT, possibly Wikileaks,
Sputnik etc. Contrary to MSM claims, RT is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead
promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there is at least a slightly different point
of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night comedy show, network news broadcast,
cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [
The Hard Road For Putin , by Gregory Hood, Radix, July 22, 2014].
There is also an undeniable,
and openly articulated , sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members
of the media. Russians are hated both as a specific ethnos and as a white nation which does
not seem to be fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class,
consists of various forms of degeneracy. [
Welcome to
Weimerica , by Ryan Landry, Daily Caller, May 5, 2017].
John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill" we are not.
It's not just idiotic but obscene that the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing
the American identity now demand Middle America rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War
nostalgia. Needless to say,
these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist and killing millions of Orthodox
Christians.
For immigration patriots, it's especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity
is a result of mass immigration. And immigration is more important than every other issue for two
reasons.
Immigration cuts to the heart of what a country is, of who you mean when you say "my people."
Are Americans still one people? Indeed, it's hard to claim America is even a geographic expression:
referring to the United States shorthand
as "America" is
now designated as offensive . The replacement of existing American citizens is
celebrated by the media and
funded by our own government.
And even citizenship means nothing, The MSM constantly promotes
Jose Antonio Vargas and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags
not just as "Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.
It's a strange definition of patriotism where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason"
but banning the American flag in public schools because it might offend Mexicans
is government policy .
Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea
of "American" identity-that of a "proposition" or "universal" nation which exists only to fight a
global struggle for equality [
Superpowers , by James Kirkpatrick, NPI, June 24, 2013].
But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal
nation?"
Actually, you can. If you are part of the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans
who actually think of this country as a real nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way
the only people left out of what it means to be a modern "American." To consider America a particular
place with a specific culture and history that not everyone in the world can join simply by existing
is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world can be an "American," except, you know,
actual Americans.
This is why the MSM is insistent that the governing philosophy of "
America First ,"
which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead
something subversive and dangerous .
The hard truth is that "our" rulers aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat
to our independence.
And this isn't an unprecedented circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia,
Carl von Clausewitz
violated his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces
in the hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying
Prussia; it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia
that would unite all of Germany.
The same situation applies today. Today, those actively pursuing the destruction of my people,
culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't even concede those are enemies at all.
Our enemies are in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government
bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.
The real America is under occupation – and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country.
We elected Donald Trump because we thought he could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation
so we could have a country once again.
The attempt to destroy the President has ripped the mask off
the forces behind
this occupation . And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy his administration,
dispossess our people, and destroy our country.
Because in the end, "treason" to the occupation is loyalty to America.
I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our
enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St.
Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities
of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism."
Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not,
of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves. Orthodox Christian
Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt
I and his war party of would be empire builders.
This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently
here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign
at all. PeakStupidity
here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone .. Buehler?
"I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone
directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."
- Buckley
We'd also be better off governed by names from the Moscow phone book than by the New York Times
and Washington Post.
"It's not merely that [Jacob] Schiff wielded enormous power, but rather the fact that his actions,
more so than anyone else's, fundamentally altered the course of American history. Schiff was really
the first true Jewish Mega-Mogul of the whole United States (Judah Benjamin had previously run
the confederacy). As the first, Schiff, more than anyone who followed him, was able to leverage
his power into eternity. That is why the MVZ award must go to him .
Schiff hated Christian Russia with a passion. He worked ceaselessly to overthrow the Romanov
Dynasty and replace it with Jewish Reds / Communists. Toward that end, he personally financed,
and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese
War. As a result, the war ended with a Japanese victory. Russia's loss was also facilitated by
Schiff's boy, President (and also a former New York Governor) Teddy Roosevelt*, whose negotiating
intervention clearly favored Japan over Russia
(* Roosevelt became President after the conservative William McKinley was conveniently assassinated
by aPolish[?]-American anarchist Leon Czolgosz, Teddy being conveniently Vice-President. Roosevelt
was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the first false-flag incident of the USS Maine occured,
later on followed by the Lusiatania – when FD Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy- and
Pearl Harbour).
"Schiff's Jewish agents in Russia skillfully used the humiliating loss of the Russo-Japanese
war as an occasion to launch a Communist revolution. The bloody Revolution of 1905 ultimately
failed, but the Tsar's regime was left considerably weakened. Many of the returning Russian POW's
came home brainwashed after Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while
in Japanese captivity. The final Bolshevik overthrow of Russia in 1917 will owe its success, in
large part, to the damage done to Russia by the team of Jacob Schiff & Ted the Red Roosevelt on
1905.
President William H. Taft proved to be a Constitutional Conservative, and not a big government
"progressive" like his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. But what really angered Jacob Schiff most
of all was Taft's refusal, told to Schiff in person, to dampen trade relations with Tsarist Russia*.
According to Henry Ford's sources, Schiff and his entourage left the White House saying. "This
means war .
[*Schiff imposed also the abrogation of the Russian American Trade Treaty of 1832 in 1911,
first instance of 'sanctions' motivated by the 'ill-treatement' of Jews in Russia (actually of
the Jews emigrated to America returning to Russia holding American passports and engaged in subversive
activities)].
"In order to oust the popular Republican Taft in 1912, Schiff and company recruited Teddy Roosevelt
to run for President again, as a third party challenger. This maneuver split the Republican vote
in two, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to steal the Presidency. Wilson's Jewish owned presidency
would turn out to be disastrous for America, and the world (The Fed, World War I, Russian Revolution,
Jewish foothold in Palestine, Depression of 1919-1920)
As was the case during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the chaos of World War I enabled the
Communists (Bolsheviks) to stage another uprising in 1917. Leading the diabolical efforts was
Jacob Schiff's loyal agent, Leon Trotsky, freshly reestablished in Russia after having hidden
in Brooklyn for the past decade. The Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that same year.
The provisional government would then be overthrown by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks.
The following year, Schiff's agents murdered the Tsar and his entire family. The reign of terror
that the Soviets then ushered in would plague humanity for decades to come. Scores of millions
would be murdered! And it could never have happened without the tireless leadership of Rothschild,
Schiff and their Junior partners.
Soon after the Revolution, Schiff removed Russia (now the Soviet Union) from his "do-not-lend
list".
Just for a little 'piquant'. The granddaughter of Jacob, Dorothy, had a 'relationship' (which
detractors called an 'affair') with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
... No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with
capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam.
And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism,
most Jews lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany,
but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also,
the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.
Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially
as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination
in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European
nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.
So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass
control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist
Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin
winning another term.
Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may
have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering,
and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists
like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland
for Jewish lawyers in love'.
So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty.
They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.
So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews
is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on
globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent,
defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism
makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support
for Putin in Russia.
In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national
people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.
Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public
Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in
the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion)
than with their own hurting kind.
These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity. Why would
they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the
Glob Virus.
Many USA jews, and rabbis, were against Zionism because the USA was the new Zion. Henry Ford
around 1918 began to see the increase of jewish power in the USA, and began resistance.
Around 1933 world jewry accomplished a world wide boycott of Ford cars, and Ford gave up. Trump,
though he has many close jewish contacts, is not the puppet of the neocons. Hillary is. So Deep
State wants to get rid of Trump,in order to continue their plans to subjugate the whole world,
the globalised world, where all cultures have disappeared, the whole world one big USA clone.
High-quality TV with Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson:
Inside Dems' 'big lie' about Trump and Russia
Published on May 18, 2017
Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' that Democrats and the media cling to
in quest to get Pres. Trump out of office #Tucker
This is a very welcome new development for the Alt Right:
Tucker Carlson's Reinvention
[...] We've become fans of the show in this household even though we consume far more more information
from the internet than cable television. He's reaching an audience which normally doesn't watch
FOX News.
Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue
of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized
elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other
side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries.
Just as Hillary Clinton may feel more comfortable with the old neoconservatives, Trump supporters
have little in common with either Clintonites or neocons.
Clinton versus Trump is a war of NPR, CBS, and the New York Times against the National Enquirer,
conservative talk radio, and the Drudge Report. Clinton supporters such as former New York
mayor Michael Bloomberg, onetime Bush officials Hank Paulson and Brent Scowcroft, and billionaire
Meg Whitman certainly have nothing in common with Republican Trump supporters such as Mike
Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh.
Culture, not just politics, is rapidly destroying - but also rebuilding - traditional political
parties.
Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned
by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land
are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free.
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-russian-scare/
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ
such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!
The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would
do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason
to be against her.
Take a recent incident The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified
information to Lavrov. McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny
that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that
had already been public for weeks. Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript
of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information. Then Trump goes on Twitter:
Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right! Go help somebody
like that
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using
anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing
to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything,
in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
@Wally Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews ....
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent.
@Sebastian Puettmann Don't kid youselves.
The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
He is just confused.
The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
We all hate Keith Olberman, but the Russians don't get the same cable channels. Why would they
hate Keith Olberman when he doesn't even come on TV there?
I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one
people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always
propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever.
There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews),
but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc.
I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American
identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians
or even Canadians have.
The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American
society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being
independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part
of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It
was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive
massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
– but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism – an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans.
@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater
to gays.
Communist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment
of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style
Jazz players coming out of Russia. You are making several good points, but I won't hit the 'agree'
button, because I agree with the Priss Factor's reply to your main points.
Again, it is amusing that you post the same potted description of you on every post.
If you post under a pseudonym and won't identify your 'authentic jazz', you may be wiser to
drop the claims.
Just leave the occasional incidental.
Nice to see you making a post that makes much sense, though.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. A typical cuckservative response, how about you respond to what this article is about. The
facts are absolutely clear the greatest enemies are those that exist in America, they have been
mentioned in this article, your obsession with Russia is not going to deflect from this fact.
Its rather simple, Ukraine is not American, despite all your stupid domino theories yourwill
no doubt bring up, on the other hand extremists like Olberman openly support mass non white immigration
into the USA, what would any reasonable nationalist think is the bigger issue.
@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never
been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase
St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities
of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those
chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist
Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until
the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Here's a 1200-page read
for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.
@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever
once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its
elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom
ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and
jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American,
Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American
identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first
the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog
society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual
or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social
group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than
melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
- but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans. I partially agree with you on the identity thing, but on the other hand the American
identity (I say this as a non American) was based on being white. There was the notable exception
of the blacks, but they did not make up the majority of the population and their acceptance as
being American was the exception more than the rule, their distinct culture added some spice to
what was America, but nobody can seriously believe that if the USA was 90% black it would still
be America.
You also now have the situation that people arrive off planes from places like India, China
or Somalia and are declared American, I find that ridiculous. Sadly this is no longer a problem
only in America, its the same in Sweden, France, Germany, UK, etc, they all have made what being
a people is completely meaningless.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas .
Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them.
That is a very strange assertion, as are many of your others. Strong evidence has been widely
reported about the gas attack while Obama was Prex of the USA having had a Turkish connection.
Erdogan imprisoned many reporters on this and other ties with al Qaeda and the Islamic state.
It is easy to look up.
Assad is an idiot.
He was a respected opthalmolagist in London for years, testimonials from former (British) patients
are not hard to find. Opthalmology may not be the most demanding medical speciality, but it is
up there, and is not a nest of idiots.
If you want to see an idiot, you may try the mirror.
@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever
once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its
elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom
ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and
jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American,
Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American
identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first
the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog
society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual
or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social
group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than
melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
- but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it.
and, with a name like Serb, I can see why. Why are you writing about something that you obviously
(from your racism drivel in the 1st paragraph) know not a damn thing about?
You are an prime example of the data points we at
PeakStupidity use to prove that America
and the West has arrived at a global maximum.
The United States of America, that dream of what a democratic republic ought to be, has become
the Fascist States of America. As the 2016 elections have more than revealed, we have moved beyond
the era of representative government and have entered into a new age. You can call it the age
of authoritarianism. Or fascism. Or oligarchy. Either way, argues John W. Whitehead, we are being
played for fools.
@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. ....
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until
the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Stalin was our enemy,
a Roosevelt creation.
He died in 1953, probably murdered.
Then the threat was over, those that did nog believe it should have realised it when Chrustjow
removed his rockets and atomic warheads from Cuba.
But the USA went on with the madness of possible mutual destruction, I suppose in the hope that
the cost of the war effort would cause the collapse of the USSR.
@Seraphim @the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Just a
reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html)
....
I had never heard of that before.
It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40
years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of
Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of
the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.
The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly
misfired on their intentions.
So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?
It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later but a joke version "was"founded
earlier, perhaps that has a connection.
A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that
the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.
The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria,
how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero
(and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how
clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military
perspective).
@Achmed E. Newman This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth,
described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's
not a good sign at all.
PeakStupidity here
is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone ..... Buehler? Isiah 5:20:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited.
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
@What has changed in 2000 years?
A steady Judaization of Christianity. They are no more Christians.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.
The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies,
radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American
friendship would have many other benefits – boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China,
and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . The 1986 amnesty was
Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get.
Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire
Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War.
Much of what you are saying I had read in passing (interesting post), but that is interesting
to me. Do you have a pointer to something I could read on it, preferably on the 'net or a book
in Japanese (also the below).
Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity.
I had never heard of that before.
It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40
years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of
Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of
the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.
The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly
misfired on their intentions.
So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?
It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later ... but a joke version "was"founded
earlier, perhaps that has a connection.
A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that
the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.
The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria,
how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero
(and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how
clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military
perspective). You will find it in:
Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership
@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!
Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose
https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation,
my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. Raegan never made any mistake:
'he slept through it all'.
Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his
essay however seem not to be functioning properly.
It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the
never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the
Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake
drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.
Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast–not Russia–that gets to graze unmolested throughout
Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.
This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state.
This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky
about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America
should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy
via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about
Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.
Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks
away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed.
It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.
Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel–not Russia–that
has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.
And it is Israel–not Russia–that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the
foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine,
Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.
Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on
Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords
or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.
Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about
Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting
that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness
of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America
as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military
power.
Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger
in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white)
multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't
like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.
Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing
the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic
conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.
US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic
and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing
venom.
The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies,
radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American
friendship would have many other benefits - boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China,
and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe. Your benefits are to Deep State horrible
losses.
The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence.
It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election
because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.
Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks.
It really is a mental illness at this point.
They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor,
but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping
up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited. Thank you
very much, Linda! I know there are plenty of search tools and places to search on-line, but I
didn't have the wording right.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. I agree with your point, John,
but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in
trusting members of
the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal – though, I grant you, any
amnesty was a bad deal for Americans.
Here is more regarding
Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. With that amnesty he could never
win any vote California if he existed now, this the problem with all these cuck types, they all
want to believe in the magic dirt of America that somehow they will have another Reagan one day,
this will never happen and Reagan shares part of the blame.
@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!
Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose
https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 Do you think think this middling intellect, son of an autoworker
from Akron, Ohio with a degree in accounting from U. of Akron, realizes he's only a useful goyim
tool and has no real power??
@Mark Green Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks
in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.
It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the
never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the
Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake
drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.
Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast--not Russia--that gets to graze unmolested throughout
Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.
This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state.
This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky
about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America
should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy
via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about
Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.
Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks
away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed.
It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.
Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel--not Russia--that
has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.
And it is Israel--not Russia--that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against
the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine,
Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.
Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on
Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords
or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.
Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about
Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting
that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness
of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America
as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military
power.
Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger
in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white)
multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't
like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.
Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing
the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic
conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.
US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic
and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing
venom. If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.
What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large
part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.
Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making
America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they
knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513 Leon Czolgosz
was not Polish.
He was a Jew whose family lived in Poland for a few generations and then moved to Anerica.
He was a follower of Emma Goldberg and Alexander Berkman who thanks be to God were deported back
to Russia just in time to participate in the revolution.
Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets
to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those
military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only
qualification that they are not White.
I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes .
@Achmed E. Newman I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's
mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in
trusting members of
the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal - though, I grant you, any
amnesty was a bad deal for Americans.
Here is more regarding
Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco. A decade before he even ran for governor Reagan was spotted
by DART industries and other cut throat capitalists who wanted to reverse every gain the working
class made in the 20th century.
Reagan's backers knew that the easiest way to do this was to import millions of legal and illegal
immigrants to replace Americans in every job from physician to dishwasher.
So Reagan CLAIMED to regret his amnesty after the damage was done. There is an old French saying.
"Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does."
That's what I do. I look beyond the rehetoric and look at what is done. Reagan betrayed his
working and middle class White voters with amnesty and making affirmative action worse.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. " because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine"
Since then the UnzReview has become a platform for the Kagans' clan propaganda? The data on
three (3) referenda have shown that Crimeans wanted a greater autonomy from Kiev long before the
US-sponsored thugs of neo-Nazi leaning followed cookie-carrying Nuland-Kagan towards the "bright
future" of today's economic and moral decline in Ukraine. Are not you longing for more auto-da-fe
in Odessa, which was conducted by neo-Nazis battalion Azov in 2014? At that time the battalion
was financed by an Israeli citizen and pillar of Jewish community of Ukraine Mr. Kolomojsky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeguAaPYKU8
It is understandable why Israel-firsters hate Russian federation; the russkies dared to stop the
advance of ISIS in a great game for Eretz Israel and other attractive mythological trinkets of
supremacist kind.
When the US and EU are hollowed out by your insatiable tribe, where would the "eternal victims"
have to go? To Rothschild bunkers?
@Zogby I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ
such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!
The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do
anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to
be against her.
Take a recent incident...
The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov.
McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal
classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been
public for weeks.
Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump
didn't reveal any classified information.
Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President
and it's my right!
Go help somebody like that... Actually it's true. The president, not state or justice and certainly
not the liberal press is completely in charge of foreign affairs and the President can classify
or not classify any and all information.
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot
of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes....
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that
never was.
As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics
of the people.
American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today,
the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction
(induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.
The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what
you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to
do the same to their people.
I just got out of the car after listening to the vomitorium NPR's daily short-stroke
session with Brooks and Dudiowhocares how the weasel spells his fairy-sounding name. It's interesting,
listening to a Jew (I could be wrong, but it's NPR, so probably not) interview a Jew pretending
to be an Anglo Conservative, and a goy leftist that I find indistinguishable from a Brooklyn Jew.
Anyhoo, between tossing each other off, Brooks (loyalty: Israel, his son serves in the IDF FFS)
called Russia our "adversary." You know it's a lie when the media says it. Did NPR's pet "Conservatives"
refer to the Soviet Union as our "adversary"?
Media = scum. Otherwise, they couldn't get work in that business.
Indeed. Many years ago, I used terms like "ZOG" only with emotional trepidation. That is long
since gone. Now the trepidation is entirely practical; it puts off the idiots we need to get through
to. It is an entirely accurate term for the regime.
No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism.
Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when
the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most
Jews lost faith in communism.
After Stalin, the Russians removed Jews (and many other aliens) from their former heights of
power in the USSR. That didn't win them any (((friends))). More to the point, Putin brought (((the
oligarchs))) to heel, and reversed all their (((important work))). That's when the (((hate)))
really started for Russia.
It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism
being 'the use of power without any ideology'.
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
And you will most certainly ignore:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with
extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication
points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/
'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg
You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the
rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links
are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.
@Anon You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all
I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other
links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion
to.
Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it. And that's why I
have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.
I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.
How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!!
@Anon The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence.
It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election
because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.
Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks.
It really is a mental illness at this point.
They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor,
but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping
up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.
Exactly, good point.
Like when Zionists claim that scrutiny of the '6M Jews, 5M other & gas chambers' is hateful
to Jews.
Forgetting that making such claims in the first place is hateful to Germans and to Gentiles who
Jews claim 'let it happen'.
Count me with the Russians, too. Non self hating whites in America are stateless and behind
enemy lines. We are told the nation belongs to every racial and religious group except those of
the founding racial stock (Christian or not). We have laws promoting and protecting most non-white
racial groups at the expense of the white majority. Our history is being rewritten to cast aspersions
on our founding and villainize great white men who built America while lionizing non-whites who
did next to nothing.
(((Hollywood))) movies and television shows depict whites as either corrupt, vapid, moronic
or untrustworthy compared to non-whites and generally dehumanize us and foment racial hatred against
us. The golden rule in politics is that white politicians are strictly forbidden from acknowledging
whites as a group let alone show any sympathy or compassion for them or working on their behalf.
Donald Trump has only done so half heartedly and implicitly and he's derided as a white supremacist
24/7 and as "un-American" while facing calls to resign simply for enforcing immigration laws and
failing to take a wrecking ball to the last vestiges of the old, white America.
This is conquest and occupation, not progress as the (((authors))) of all these trends inform
us. With a straight face. Everything most of us loved and held dear has been destroyed by the
JOG and remade in their vile image and likeness.
Therefore, if Putin were to invade the U.S. this would be cause for celebration for the embattled
and shrinking white majority. We would have nothing to lose. This nation betrayed us long ago
and no longer deserves our loyalty, support or affection.
The pot bellied, "race doesn't matter" patriotards and antifa scumbags can have it.
@Wally And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure
you remember.
I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.
How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!! You clearly have no interest in debate.
Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself.
@Priss Factor The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and
it does not cater to gays. Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for
the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism
with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism.
Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the
truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews
lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany,
but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also,
the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.
Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially
as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination
in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European
nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.
So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass
control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist
Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin
winning another term.
Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have
kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and
this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like
Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland
for Jewish lawyers in love'.
So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty.
They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.
So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews
is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on
globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent,
defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism
makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support
for Putin in Russia.
In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national
people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.
Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public
Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in
the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion)
than with their own hurting kind.
These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity.
Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized
by the Glob Virus. 60′s Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence.
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
"Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? "
Here we are.
Don't look for leadership from the Whore of Babylon.
All of these "hierarchical" churches are pyramids of power in the Beast System.
Authority among men is on a level field; with the Word of God- Jesus of the scriptures- as
King.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was.
As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics
of the people.
American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today,
the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction
(induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.
The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what
you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to
do the same to their people. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable
culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"
His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we
have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens.
Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths.
Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the
Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves
into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.
"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive
dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."
Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they
created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?
" mass replacement immigration."
No.
"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it
what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites
to do the same to their people."
There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point
is tiresome to say the least.
@Anon You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt.
Enjoy yourself. Problem is that you're not an intellectual. Not in the slightest. Dream on.
@jilles dykstra If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.
What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large
part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.
Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making
America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they
knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians. By definition, since the polity of the USA is controlled
by the Izzies, it can not be a sovereign state.
It is a bizarre colonial posession of Israel. So, by your argument, Israel is the only truly
sovereign state.
@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic...
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. The
likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion)
led the charge through the institutions.
Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.
Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent
to be academic hack.
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
And you will most certainly ignore:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with
extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication
points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/
'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg
In view of the contents of your last link, you may be interested in this :
https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/the-dumb-american-poem/
@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic...
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. " An all-knowing
judge/creator"
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
@Corvinus Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture,
language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"
His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we
have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens.
Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths.
Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the
Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves
into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.
"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive
dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."
Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they
created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?
"...mass replacement immigration."
No.
"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it
what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites
to do the same to their people."
There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point
is tiresome to say the least. I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in
the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people
by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired
judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise
this controversial interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So ..
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al
@jilles dykstra It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition
of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'. Just keeping it real from inside the
D.C. operations and from folk's in power!
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... Stop being gentle and delicate with
the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born
White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal .Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them they would view
it as genocide
America is not a proposition nation and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day 365 days a year as
Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class .Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions .and Rampage 82
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82 my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands .my cousin committed suicide three years
later .Oh my God what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen I know some of the emergency
room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning .there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82 " go by it read it ..
The alleged patriotism of the US Congress (and Olderman, Maddow, and other hysterical "progressives")
and the reality of meddling into the US affairs, as documented by the facts:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/19/the-open-secret-of-foreign-lobbying/
"When AIPAC director Morris Amitay was caught red-handed mishandling classified missile secrets
in 1975, he could have been prosecuted under FARA. When AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat purloined
the entire 300-page book of classified trade secrets compiled from 70 U.S. industry groups opposed
to unilateral trade concessions for Israel in 1984, they could have been prosecuted for failing
to report their clandestine subversion of due process. When in 2005 [AIPAC officials] Steven J.
Rosen and Keith Weissman met with Israeli diplomats during efforts to pass classified information
to the press they thought could trigger a U.S attack on Iran, FARA consequences would have awaited
them all. However, because the U.S. Department of Justice has unilaterally abrogated its responsibility
to enforce FARA, people, ideas, money and propaganda campaigns continue to secretly slosh freely
between Tel Aviv and Israeli fronts in America with taxpayer funds thrown into the toxic brew."
In short, "support the troops" by sending them to fight for Tel Aviv projects.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/neocons-protest-us-spying-on-israel/
Meanwhile, the US homeland security is in the Israelis' hands.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/08/21/homeland-security-made-in-israel/
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/US-Deputy-of-Homeland-Security-US-Israel-to-sign-automated-cyber-information-sharing-agreement-457261
@Anon The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and
legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.
Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.
Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent
to be academic hack.
Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore. All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism
and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the
Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the
kindling of second wave feminism.
If you have any doubts about the open genocidal intent of the Democratic Party
Do the following thought experiment ..What would happen if Richard Spencer incessantly in his
his US College Tour stated emphatically:"WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFULL IF YOUNG NATIVE BORN WHITE
AMERICAN COUPLES STARTED HAVING LARGE WHITE FAMILIES .so Native Born White Americans can go back
to being a 90 racial minority in America again!!!!"
How would Melissa Harris Perry react?
How would Maxine Waters react?
How would the TATA Institute grads react?
How would Ciela Munoz react?
How would the smelly hairy bulldyke Hillary Clinton react?
Paul Kersey
Go buy Rampage 82 .."Oh my God what they did to that waitress" .this is what the Greek owner
of the restaurant next to Walt Whitman High School said to me several years ago .the restaurant
by the Colonial Era..historic grave yard that the Salvadoran youth trample over disrespectefully
every morning on their way to Walt Whitman High School ..West Hills area
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's
use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide"
which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and
coherent culture."
CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.
"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."
The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets–Anonym and Anon, for starters.
"America is not a proposition nation "
Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular,
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks
and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It
is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic
legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal
principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative
form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization "
By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it,
to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants
must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life
changing
on LI.
In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old
style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's
scope of the imagination at the time.
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ...
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America.
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician. You are correct.
Free will is paramount.
And with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.
Jesus said not to fear the first death.
Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.
Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self-
aggrandizement) or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.
Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this
message.
But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire";
who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind"
I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors
fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so
much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty
of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?
@Stonehands I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
on LI.
In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old
style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's
scope of the imagination at the time. As you know Glen Cove has been completely colonized by El
Salavodor and Mexico
Glen Cove used to be a beautifull North Shore Town
I used to go to that health food store down past the firehouse that used to proudly display
the great big Convederate Flag in the firetruck bays .
Interestingly Tom Suozzi's uncle was the Mayor of Glenn Cove and got trashed by Newday for
cracking down on the Mexicans and Salvadoran illegals .his nephew Tom the Cockroach is onboard
with importing the nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc .and war with Christian Russia
Congressman Tom Suozzi a creepy looking short Italian with cornrows of hairplugs and platforms
in his shoes .and speaks with a lisp
@Corvinus "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open
genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."
The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets--Anonym and Anon, for starters.
"America is not a proposition nation..."
Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular,
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks
and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It
is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic
legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal
principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative
form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."
By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it,
to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants
must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores. Oh shut the fuck up you
libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the
demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days .
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington,
D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law
enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer
Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker,
and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time Okay, so where's the computer?
Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters
because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running
an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story.
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even
knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking
story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's
the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from
a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the
Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken
a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25
visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University.
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness
account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from
the front page as humanly possible. Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray)
who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no
interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?"
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian
slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own
country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case
they are dangerous and corrupt."
What Putin said yesterday:
"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case
they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
Putin was being tactful, obviously.
Clearly, what he meant was that the US is now dominated by dangerously corrupt people. The
same is true of virtually all states in all times. What is unusual about America today is the
scale of harm that the US plutocracy is in a position to inflict, and is indeed inflicting, on
both Americans and the world.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it.....
Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus
Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might
be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the
"agent provocateur" function enabled. The AP function would explain the repeated demands to know
what someone opposed to European genocide proposes to do about it: bomb throwing being, presumably,
the desired response, leading to arrest and incarceration under anti-terrorism laws.
One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated. If he
were denying the Jewish Holocaust he would be censored here, or if not, probably targeted for
some kind of legal sanction, as would only be right. Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European
hatred here?
And...with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.
Jesus said not to fear the first death.
Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.
Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self-
aggrandizement)...or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.
Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this
message.
But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire";
who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind" First of all, myself
a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed
within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He
was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he
had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this
holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation,
and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I
agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable
to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the
jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering
my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort
at hand : Making it, the music, swing.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist.
@Corvinus "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."
CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.
"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.
"Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is..."
Maybe. Or maybe not. "not relevant here". Fair enough unless you are willing to allow in these
often discursive conversations an attempt to lead people on a path of thought which will spark
tecognition – in this case perhaps of the loss of much that used to bind even if it wasn't an
essential eternal part of human existence.
@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot
of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes.... "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the
complete degeneracy of th electorate
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white
house.
Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family
who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.
You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering
about.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America. At least Leicester has got a lot of successful Indians
has it not (many ex East Africa I believe)? By chance I had dinner tonight at a Two Fat Indians
restaurant, not nearly as cheap as in the UK but also no fat Indians but a couple of gorgeous
smiling smart young women from Punjab. I wouldn't want all our immigration of the relatively smart
to be Chinese, though I welcome them, so it tended to confirm my relatively optimistic view about
Australia's population. Clearly native white Australians are breeding almost as dysgenically as
outback Aborigines and Lebanese immugrants from 40 yeats ago so I see the Chinese and Indians
who have often been educated in Australia as making up for that. It is curious however that our
school PISA ranking has declined in the last 10 years or so. I suspect parties of the left and
teacher unions though another cause for puzzling over it is that a larger proportion of children
get their education in non government schools in Australia than almost anywhere in the First World.
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America. "But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded
policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide
or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny."
Clearly your fixation on something that does not observable exist, chiefly the extermination
of whites in the "West" by elites and their toadies, is a trait of you as an aspie. I have nothing
personal against your affliction. I just find it fascinating that you rinse and repeat this phenomenon.
"The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement "
Another one of your obsessions. Modern married white couples rarely look at their situation
in this fashion. They have children. They will take care of them as best they are able. Tens of
thousands of mothers and fathers assuredly are not going to be badgered by you and your ilk into
thinking about ensuring the viability of the "white race" by having more babies. Have you met
your obligation here? Do you have at least five white offspring? Have you properly indoctrinated,
I mean discussed, of their future duty?
(consistent with government directed sex "education,")
Yes, sex education. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.
"plus no-fault divorce"
Yes, no-fault divorce. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.
"and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)"
Finally, we agree. This is a big deal.
"as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of
mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population."
NOT genocide. Mass immigration has been a historical and global phenomenon. Nations sent colonists
to explore. The undesired and unwanted left their home countries and, as immigrants, arrived to
other parts of the globe. Immigration policies were informal or formal, and they varied from nation
to nation. Furthermore, there always has been some level of augmentation in a nation's population.
The British helped to found the American colonies; other Europeans, along with Africans and Asians
and Latin Americans, arrived there, either voluntarily or by force. The British were "replaced"
in the fact they were no longer the dominant group to control the region, and that they increasingly
intermarried with non-British. This ethnic "mixing" had been considered taboo in Europe (except
among the elite to secure their power and authority), but in America it became the rule.
"Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester
where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham
(England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary
school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America."
Tragic. But a fact of life. I suggest you run for political office. Make a difference in England,
your home nation. Promote what you believe in.
"Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might
be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the
"agent provocateur" function enabled."
From what I've been told by a good friend who does work for this organization, the CIA has
been targeting you since you were eight years old. They have a dossier on you and your family.
You have been on notice for decades given your "pro-race is code for anti-humanity" mindset.
"One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated."
Of course it should be "tolerated". In fact, it should be relished and replicated by other
posters here to expose your lies and propaganda. There is no "Euro-Holocaust". That is Fake News.
I'm sure at some point in time the CIA will engage in psycho-ops and reprogram you.
"Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?"
False characterization. I am "spewing" my love for the human race. Unfortunately, there are
people who are bitter and lost.
@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front
of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical
National Review reader these days.... "Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in
front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a
typical National Review reader these days ."
Are your sock puppets on eight hour or daily shifts?
Now, regarding my posterity comment, do you have a rebuttal?
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... That's why militias were formed to take care of the wild dogs that
roam thru society Join one today..
@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and
whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt
that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in
the comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think
most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB – disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression – promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim – i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-----
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life."
@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front
of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical
National Review reader these days.... Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement
of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's
something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being
against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.
Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of
the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare,
Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland
of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the
Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling
elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out,
from the time of
Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government
as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.
@Stonehands All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew
commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse
and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism.
Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.
Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her.
The media just needed someone as 'leader'.
Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of
long march through institutions.
Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term
'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most
people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-------------
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life."
while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.
well said Geo,
we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West
no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating,
(with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents]
who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who
want to pay lower wages in general)
but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is,
at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the
US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that,
but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers
call all non-Jewish immigrants – invaders.
So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish
tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife,
while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people
exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.
There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial
swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience
is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only)
white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.
@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and
whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt
that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in
the comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
@Authenticjazzman First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a
center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than
you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement
by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if
he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation,
and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I
agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable
to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the
jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering
my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort
at hand : Making it, the music, swing.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist. I own a small restaurant where l occassionally feature solo artists or duets, myself
included. I have been playing classical/jazz guitar for 45 years. I recently performed for Jason
Vieaux [2016 solo classical Grammy award] and friends, and one of the pieces l played was "Jesu."
He agreed that my original transcription [key of G] and fingering were unique and pleasing to
the ear and probably easier to commit to memory then the Rick Foster or Christopher Parkening
renditions; we're talking non- stop double and triple stops here!
As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but
you cannot confirm it.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians,
journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's like
speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)
Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to
feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.
The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world
is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.
While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies for "destroying our democracy," an obscene
spectacle of persecution of the most important whistleblower of our times continues.
"Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/getting-assange-the-untold-story/
"Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter
and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone this guy."
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in
scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years
to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's ability to defend himself
in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret.
In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national
security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm
the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to
show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security." This is a kangaroo
court."
@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater
to gays.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment
of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style
Jazz players coming out of Russia.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm
at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because
they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia
refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but
they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was,
if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism.
@ThereisaGod This comment reflects the mindless nationalism of a person who has spent too
much time reading mainstream Zionist propaganda.
The USA INSTIGATED the Syrian "revolution". It armed and funded the rebels (Al Qaeda) and told
them we would support them. The Assad government had NO CHOICE but to act as they did or die,
handing Syria over to friends of Israel who would then set about dismantling the defences of the
Shias in the region who effectively oppose the racist state of Israel.
As this article lays out, American patriots should be supporting Russia and Assad. If these countries
fall to international finance (as the entire western world has done) the Washington swamp will
turn its full attention to destroying the USA in a similar manner to the Soviets destruction of
Christian Russia (it's the same people, folks. The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives).
Sean. Your comment is, umm ...... confused.
The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives
I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not
quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a heretical
communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way are they actual
communists?
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
In the West Christian leaders are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. They're
liberals. They're not liberal Christians, they're just liberals.
In Russia they take Christianity a bit more seriously. In Russia Christian leaders actually
believe in God (which is extremely rare among western Christian leaders).
The problem with Christianity is that once you take away belief in God what you're left with
really is just liberalism.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . Your comment is totally
senseless!
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician. @why did he not rethink
Did that false 'judge/creator' not know that he would be taken to task by an Authenticjazzman,
the 'authentic' judge of what God should or should not do as to not displease his 'Authenticity'?
So, he is not all-knowing. QED.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. How exactly did Reagan biggest
mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please.
@Alden Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military
secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action
those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose
only qualification that they are not White. Regardless of ethnicity, these spies deserve the death
penalty, for treason to the people who gave them the welcome into our land. As for "white christian",
Christianity is either underground or dying, thanks to the power of the sons of the devil, as
told by Iesous Christos, (greek), (John 8:44-45 King James Version (KJV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So now we know that 'churchianity' has become a den of thieves, and a cave of robbers, teaching
that whom Christ called sons of the devil, Churchianity teaches that they are the children of
god. What a contradiction by those who profess to represent Christ!
@Anon Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.
Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her.
The media just needed someone as 'leader'.
Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of
long march through institutions.
Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term
'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'. "They have nothing to do with
communism"
Bullshit they have everything to do with communism, as all, without exception, all of these
characters are hoping and waiting for the transformation of capitalism to marxism, and they, as
stupid and naive as they are, they think that they will be running the show thereafter, when fact
is they will be the first to be purged.
You simply have no insight, and you are in above your head with these themes.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm
at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because
they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia
refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but
they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was,
if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism. "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the
US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism.
The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international
bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.
@annamaria "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today
have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians
are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers,
and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree. " They serve the interests of global capitalism"
Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to
decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.
Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting
and waiting for the shift to collectivism.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it
is fact.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz musician.
I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors
fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is
so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There
are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
No, I won't reject you. That would be actual anti-Semitism, and would make no sense. But if
you follow the usual pattern, and spend more time fighting critics of Jewry than you do fighting
the Jews who deserve critiquing, then yeah, I've no use for you.
Basically I expect pro-White Jews to join the White Tribe, and put the Jewish Tribe at the
back of the bus, or better yet, off the bus altogether (other than some special cases, I don't
even see why most of them would even need to announce (or even hold) their Jewish identity; it's
not like anyone's going to put you on the rack and force you to confess it – Jewish identity
is something you can reject or opt out of).
As for those special cases: the most valuable thing a pro-White Jew can do is go into his own
(former?) tribe and fight Whites' enemies there. You guys have a calling of epic importance waiting
for you, if you'll have it.
We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous
are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence
more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of
these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker
party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy
is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting
question- the policy is clearly in error.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most
people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-------------
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life." I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that
is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have
married outside our religion of birth.
Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal
intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Agreed. Corvinus is a piece of shit. CanSpeccy makes a great point about his "hi fellow kids!"
"yeah but guys where can we buy some dynamite?" federal informant type trolling.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make
up their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its
doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist
from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
Shit or get off the pot, as I like to say. If I may be so bold, I would strike "embrace mono-culturalism
for all nations" from the list of demands. It would certainly be the right thing for Jews to do,
given their embrace of ethnopatriotism for themselves, but I would be satisfied with the demand
(which is non-negotiable, I agree) "immediately cease and desist from promoting the anti-ethnopatriotic
agenda for non-Jewish Whites" being met.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical
note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might
find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the
20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy,
assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer
in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against
the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with
a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz
was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was
purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others
sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and
the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht
in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help
in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50′s he and the
other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists.
Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty,
and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he
was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.
@Aaron8765 oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the
50's he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they
were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed
in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something
to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he
wouldn't take the oath. 'principle' (sic)
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
"Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this."
False characterization.
"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not."
It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the purposeful
destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is
the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat
grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed into promoting these concepts. Except you are
conveniently discounting this important fact human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of
people have made decisions of their own accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies
for a host of reasons. You are a snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering
our youth. Let us assume that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there
would be some other group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination
and mind control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of
the masses.
"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own
kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define
hate speech and racism."
That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a particular
group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You have every liberty
to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind" have the freedom to
question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those protections are put in
place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as "racism" and "hate speech"? It's
a ruse.
no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating,
(with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents]
who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who
want to pay lower wages in general)
but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is,
at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the
US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that,
but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers
call all non-Jewish immigrants - invaders.
So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish
tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife,
while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people
exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.
There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial
swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience
is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only)
white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.
But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative
of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries
Don't be so sure about some . One hundred percent of Jews serving in both chambers of
Congress have supported efforts at granting mass amnesty of third world illegal aliens. Seventy
to eighty percent consistently vote Democrat no matter how far to the left or anti-white the party
becomes. Even so called conservative (or neocon) Jews like Krauthammer, Bernie Goldberg and others
have voiced support for amnesty or partial amnesty.
So it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board with America
as proposition nation and the race replacement of whites while hypocritically supporting the militant
racial nationalism and exclusivity of the Israeli state.
it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board
I can't argue with that Ken
and you could say the same of all non-white peoples, they're mostly on board for an immigration
policy that will eventually rip white nations apart and see the white people trampled under like
they were in Zimbabwe, or Haiti when the whites received their comeuppance then.
They all seem to hate us, but none more so than Jews
but it is worth pointing out that certainly not all Jews (or other minorities) want us genocided
some can see past their blind racial hatred and envy to the day that whitey is finally ground
under the mire of their collective hatred, to what comes next.
what kind of world will it be without Western civilization and the Rule of Law?
Zimbabwe, Palestine, Darfur, the Balkans, Drug cartels and corruption running S. America outright,
India and Pakistan cutting each other's throats, cannibalism returning to Africa and Indonesian
islands, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc.
And I mention New Zealand, because the only thing protecting the white people (and the meek
of all races) in places like Oceana or Latin America or Africa, the Middle East, etc is the fragile,
amorphous sense of the law , that permeates the jungles and hinterlands of the planet,
where some American expatriate living in Mexico is left unmolested by the cartels and corrupt
governments down there. On the day that whitey is unable to protect his own families in the US,
that is the day that certain ex-patriots in Mexico will find out just how loved they really are
by the Mexicans, who've suffered their arrogance and relative wealth with bitter, quiet, simmering
resentment.
If your society has reached the point where your women and children are brutalized by hostile
invading armies and there's nothing you can do to protect them, and the courts and authorities
will not punish the orcs, then it's only a short distance until the day of Zimbabwe comes and
you're run out of your home in terror for your life.
There was a time when the whites of Zimbabwe could count on England and the rule of law to
protect them. They discovered too late how wrong they were. It will be the same for all white
places when the global system of the Rule of Law breaks down and we return to the law of the jungle
with a vengeance.
how well will Israel fare when there's no more white guilt to milk for funding and arms and
"moral" sanction?
already Norway and other nations are talking about BDS, in part because of the burgeoning Muslim
populations in these countries.
when Europe becomes multicultural, as that Zionist hag insists it must, how well are the Jews
of the world going to prosper when the governments of Europe are Islamized?
@Aaron8765 We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the
most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge,
and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against
both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the
weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign
policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an
interesting question- the policy is clearly in error. Treason in high places: " Not Remembering
the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm
cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship
by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's
firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun
at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors
to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought
out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President
stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our
government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck,
who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious,
unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their
families"
@Aaron8765 I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If
that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have
married outside our religion of birth.
have married outside our religion of birth
That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a religious
one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of Israel defines what
a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the Nuremberg race acts that defined
what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will claim they are using it for those fleeing
oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were
correct in their definitions.
Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference
or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO
@Authenticjazzman "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy
of th electorate
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white
house.
Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family
who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.
You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering
about.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the
white house.
Quite.
Conservatives despair to find that Trump scores only a 1.5 or 2 relative to the ideal 10 they
had hoped for.
However, Hillary would have been a solid and consistent -8 (MINUS EIGHT) or worse. Every day
of Trump – however betrayed Conservatives may feel relative to their ideals – is a day on which
the ALL-OUT DESTRUCTION of America does not proceed with the organized, unopposed vigor that it
would have done under Hillary. (Also known as Mrs. Vincent Foster #2.)
Of course, the lackey MSM are doing their level best to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD)
among those opposed to the oligarchy. Their "Russia hacked the election" complex of lies (aka
"narrative") would certainly have drawn admiring applause from Joseph Goebbels himself, both for
the boldness of the original conception – tapping into old *conservative* mistrust of the USSR,
and for the shameless repetitive execution.
Right now, the U.S. still has remnants of the Second Amendment, which alone is the true,
long-term measure of a free country. (Various states and their complicit federal judges are
working hard to get rid of this final obstacle to billionaire rule and death camps.)
Don't believe that the SECOND Amendment is the true measure of a free country? Spend 6 weeks
in Canada or any other advanced country in Europe, Asia, talk to people, see what they say about
sensitive subjects. Read and watch their MSM and alternative media. Ask yourself where the subject
country was 100 years ago, and where it is likely to be in 100 years.
Has free speech in the subject country been OFFICIALLY curtailed under rubrics such as "hate
speech," "incitement," "libel/slander" etc.? What is the extent of INFORMAL censorship, e.g. through
publishers' associations, codes of conduct, post-modern J-schools and official "certification"
of "journalists," etc.?
What do they/don't the MSM in the subject country report? Secret/informal taboos? Is there
REAL criticism of the power structure? Of existing laws and institutions? Are politicians REALLY
subject to the rule of law? Do they REALLY lock up corrupt politicians as the U.S. used to do?
Are politicians' families exempt from public scrutiny?
Political murder is another indication of the health or otherwise of a free society. Are mysterious
deaths of politicians and their staff commonplace in the subject society? Does interest in major
incidents die down after 2-3 days? Or persist for years (JFK) despite repeated attempts at whitewashing?
@CanSpeccy Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans.
It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with
those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of
your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.
Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of
the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare,
Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland
of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the
Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling
elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out,
from the time of
Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government
as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.
Wiz Oz seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
– vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are – are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
@Aaron8765 I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse.
On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist.
You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists
of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy,
assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer
in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against
the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with
a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz
was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was
purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others
sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and
the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht
in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help
in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews. Re: Kantorowicz
Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly)
for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a tenure-track
appointment, that I abandoned after three days.
The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable to
conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For Jews,
it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a religion
that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges the Jews to
go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.
Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions
of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically Jewish
interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of suspicion,
fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they
ran much
of Hollywood , were
among the principal peddlers of porn in America , had
massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout to
determine
who holds many of the other seats in Congress .
None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and an
American-firster.
@annamaria Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm
cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship
by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's
firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun
at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors
to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought
out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President
stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our
government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck,
who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious,
unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their
families" WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy
ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did
the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial
WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around
the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite
several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety
and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed that the
Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship
with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government.
An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly
within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds
of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.
Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to
decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.
Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting
and waiting for the shift to collectivism.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it
is fact.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz musician.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution,
when they could have simply left things are they were.
Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance
to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).
The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology.
They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.
The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US
moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.
@Sowhat Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate
a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO Mr. What, that "bluing"
is called a hyperlink *. They've been around for well nigh 25 years now by my recollection.
The guy's link is fine, but VDare right now is raising some money, and that "splash" page will
appear on anyone's initial visit, so to speak, to the site right now. If you mash that X in the
right corner, you will get directly to the article that the guy you're replying to wants you to
see.
I hope that helps I would like to AGREE with myself here too, because, as usual, I know I
am right. I don't know how to do that though without joining faceboot or some such crap.
* Here is one, just as a
random example. It'd be interesting to see what happens when you single-click on it. You might
as well now – it'll bug you the rest of the evening if you don't.
@Eagle Eye WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty
spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What
did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial
WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around
the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite
several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety
and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off - it is sometimes claimed that the
Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship
with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government.
An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly
within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds
of individuals to propose, prepare and implement. "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty
story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:"
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to
loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).
The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology.
They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.
The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US
moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.
" Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it"
Hogwash, this idea is beyond absurd.
What you are saying is that for the purpose of "Making a fast buck" they will support a political/economic
system, namely communism, which has the goal of destroying them , in other words the chickens
are voting for Colonel Sanders.
" The monied classes do not believe in marxism" . Again hogwash, and you would be in a state
of shock if you were able to engage certain billionaires in conversation regarding this issue.
The motivation behind their fixation upon Marxism is their striving to considered as "Intellectuals",
and they are plagued by inferiority complexes regarding their status as "Businessmen", whereas
marxists are looked upon as : "Intellectual".
I was never convinced that rich people were exceptionally intelligent, rather to the contrary.
Wall street being a perfect example of stupidity prevailing amongst millionaires and billionaires.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist.
@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing
the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with
hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was
the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder
people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French. "and it turned out that traditional English
cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled
the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the
product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the
Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher",
considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs
students in this field.
"Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations.
Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's
Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have
sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned
Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive
mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious
and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes
and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have
full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria,
women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's
ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still
occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern
Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and
Tel Aviv for decades ."
" considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and
instructs students in this field"
So what you are saying is that holding a "doctoral degree" in philosophy automatically transforms
the individual involved into being a "Philsopher"
This is pure unadulterated nonsense, and I personally have had the aquaintance of two persons
who did indeed hold doctoral degrees in philosophy and they were both light years away from the
qualification of "Philosopher".
Homer was a"Philosopher", Marc Aurel, was a philosopher, Goethe was a philosopher, etc, but
none of the BS artists in this day and age holding doctoral degrees in philosophy, could ever
with a straight face claim to be a "philosopher".
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing
the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very simply:
What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and naval
attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?
You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli false-flag
operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.
The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.
This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.
Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple visual
identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote possibility
of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.
Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out what
actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude involves at
a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept completely secret.
The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian targets,
but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.
Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined air-sea
attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual observation is
unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.
So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?
Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military leadership,
the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major and indeed mortal
threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to risk a major rift with
the U.S. to eliminate the threat.
How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military
intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred either
pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because the local
command went rogue.
@Corvinus "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics
and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the
world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the
product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the
Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher",
considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs
students in this field.
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."
Notice how ridiculous it sounds?
French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does
not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker.
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
As was the Lavon affair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with
hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was
the false flag attack on 9/11 - that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder
people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
@annamaria "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
http://theduran.com/heres-why-saudi-arabia-and-israel-are-allies-in-all-but-name/
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations.
Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's
Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have
sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned
Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive
mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious
and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes
and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have
full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria,
women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's
ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still
occupies Syria's Golan Heights). ...
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern
Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and
Tel Aviv for decades ."
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.
Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already
exhausted then.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed
on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
" it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively.
Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?
At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David
Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the
current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object
and purpose):
1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).
For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti
seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with
the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the
Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we
might be made gods. Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are
both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' – the definitions of
the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 – Septuagint).
'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.
@annamaria "...it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively. (1) I said that "reading between the lines,"
one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of
course, such efforts (if they indeed took place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would
be kept top secret even years later.
(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined air/sea
attack on the USS Liberty.
The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War trying
to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.
CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing high-grade
intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.
If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of radar
by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.
QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt, other
Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
I don't understand why you say that or why Corvinus thinks it would be silly if anyone did
say in English "I am a philosopher."
Most significant universities in the English-speaking world have a philosophy department whose
faculty members would, in most cases, be prepared to assert that "I am a philosopher."
This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to
make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
No doubt there are plenty of bad English-speaking philosophers as there are bad English-speaking
academics in every other field, but it is simply false to suggest that philosophical works in
the English language are characterized by ponderous bad writing. In fact, the great English-speaking
philosophers lead the world in the clarity of their analysis:
David Hume
, for example, or
George
Berkeley .
Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?
At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David
Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the
current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object
and purpose):
1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).
For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti
seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with
the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the
Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we
might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are
both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' - the definitions of
the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 - Septuagint).
'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. David Anhagt may have been at the
forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today,
surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:
(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?
(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we
know of it and how?
(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?
(4) What is morality?
(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it
is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers),
restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment
programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law,
the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property
law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants
access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to
so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations
and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and
Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.
As for:
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions
balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
LOL
Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They
even have
listening lamp posts.
Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced
as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout,
mainly protestant, Christians.
Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick
knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom
pants, and on and on.
As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern
age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.
What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?
A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person
talking about running a marathon. as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the
native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and
Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic,
the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population
there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by
the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering
the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd
and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head
of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host
in a desired direction.
@CanSpeccy David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity,
but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are
of the following kind:
(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?
(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we
know of it and how?
(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?
(4) What is morality?
(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?
And much more. All these 'moves' have been already made long before the end of Antiquity. There
were the essential questions of 'philosophy' to which Plato, Aristotle and a score of 'Oriental'
philosophers have offered the answers.
Didn't a noted philosopher of the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead, famously said that: 'The
safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of
a series of footnotes to Plato'?
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."
Notice how ridiculous it sounds?
French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does
not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker. "Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher.""
The Saker publishes some interesting news re the MH17 tragedy:
"SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] orders to destroy all evidence of the conducted special operation
MH17″
http://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/
by Scott Humor: " If you want to know my opinion that hasn't changed since 2014. The Boeing flight
MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian air force fighter jets, but not necessarily piloted by Ukrainian
pilots. It was a CIA and NATO operation to frame Russia. Most likely the Dutch government was
a part of this operation. Now, they are trying to hang all the dogs on Waltzman -Poroshenko, because
neither the Dutch monarchs, nor the CIA would fancy to be implicated in this crime."
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed
on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced
back to them within hours at the latest.
then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?
that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to sink
the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.
and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly, murderous
treason.
@annamaria as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population
and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and
Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic,
the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population
there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by
the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering
the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd
and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head
of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host
in a desired direction. You still haven't answered the question:
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
@Eagle Eye You still haven't answered the question:
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
Thank you. if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US-
Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what was
going on. Duh.
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty"
of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of people
have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by Israel and
be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.
We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were called
back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not once, but
twice.
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose,
or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely
never know.
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate
obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's
government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran
in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."
@Seraphim There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.
but most of them are sloppy footnotes
True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual
endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things
- so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth,
either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.
How does Russia ( read Putin ) embracing Christianity and encouraging it again in Russia factor
in the sudden sour attitude of our progressives in the US? The LOVED the USSR.. as it was atheistic,
no? But as a non-threat-Russia, and a Christian Russia, eh, not so much; especially since Russia
has decided they are not so fond of the Muslim.
True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual
endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things
- so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth,
either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.
You can see what sloppiness leads to.
@in the middle How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples,
please. Giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants who were in America in 1986 encouraged more illegal
immigrants to come, in hopes of a future amnesty.
In 1986 there were only 1 million illegal immigrants. Now there are at least 11 million.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is
(think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers),
restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment
programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law,
the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property
law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants
access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to
so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations
and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and
Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.
As for:
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
LOL. Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They
even have
listening lamp posts.
Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced
as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout,
mainly protestant, Christians. Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick
knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom
pants, and on and on.
As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern
age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American Revolution,
and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they were perceived by
the educated class in the colonies.
The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier ages,
are neither here nor there for these purposes.
Paul Craig Roberts views Zbigniew Brzezinski through the rose glasses. In reality Zbig
Russophobia was based on that same desire to dominate the globe that had driven British elite to
Russophobia before. Plus desire of MIC to preserve its size and profits and return to
the good old days of Cold War. The US militarism is business driven militarism, which makes it even more dangerious.
Notable quotes:
"... The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget. ..."
"... Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected. ..."
"... Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia. ..."
"... The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction. ..."
"... The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth. ..."
"... The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon. ..."
I think that the "Soviet Threat," the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security
complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect. The patriotic war movies, the patriotic
Memorial Days and July 4ths with emotional thanks to those who died "saving our freedoms," which
were never in danger from the Japanese and Germans, only from our own government, succeeded in brainwashing
even National Security Advisors. Little wonder the insouciance of the American population today.
The Cold War was an orchestration of the military/security complex, and there are many victims.
Brzezinski was a victim as the Cold War was his life. JFK was a victim as he lost his life to it.
The Vietnamese, who died in the millions, were victims The photo of the naked young Vietnamese girl
fleeing down the road in terror from the American napham behind her made us aware that the Cold War
had many innocent victims. The Soviet troops sent to Afghanistan were victims as were the Afghans
themselves.
The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev.
This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US
military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget.
Treading water while looking for a new justification for bleeding the American taxpayer, the military/security
complex had President Clinton declare the US to be the World Policeman and to destroy Yugoslavia
in the name of "human rights." With Israeli and neoconservative input, the military/security complex
used 9/11 to create the "Muslim Terrorist Threat." This hoax has now murdered, maimed, dispossessed,
and displaced millions of Muslims in seven countries.
Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria,
Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security
annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected.
The Muslim Threat was never a danger to the US. It is only a danger to Washington's European vassal
states, who had to accept millions of Muslim refugees from Washington's wars. However, the newly
created Russian Threat is a threat to every American as well as to every European.
Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing
nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military
has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia.
This dire Russian announcement received no western press coverage. No high official of any Western
government, Trump included, called Putin to give reassurances that no such attack on Russia was being
planned.
So, what happens next time when a false alarm, such as the one Brzezinski received, is received
by his counterpart in Moscow or the National Security Council? Will the animosities resurrected by
the evil US military/security complex result in the Russians or the US believing the false signal?
The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate
that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction.
The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy
theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist,"
you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell
you the truth.
The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American
military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is
this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire
world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon.
Headliner of the week was the Muslim
terrorist attack on a pop concert in Manchester, England. The bomber blew
himself up and took 22 others with him. That's the count as I go to tape
here; over a hundred were injured, some critically, so the death count may
be higher as you hear this.
The bomber was a 22-year-old Muslim, name
of Salman Abedi, born in Britain to parents from Libya. Those parents had
been settled in England as refugees from Colonel
Gaddafy's
government; so that's where the bomber was born, in England,
1994.
Salman Abedi's parents thereupon, in 2011,
returned to Libya. Salman Abedi, then 17, stayed in the U.K.
So I'll just pause to note here that this
is yet another case of
absimilation
. Here yet again is the relevant
passage from
We Are Doomed
, the one book you need to explain the modern
world. Chapter 10, edited quote:
The English word "assimilation" derives
from the Latin prefix
ad
-, which indicates a moving towards
something, and the same language's verb simulare, "to cause a person or
thing to resemble another." You can make a precisely opposite word using
the prefix
ab
-, which marks a moving away from something. Many
immigrants of course assimilate to American society Many others,
however, especially in the second and following generations,
ab
similate.
That's what Salman Abedi did: He
absimilated, ending up hating the country that had taken in his parents.
It wasn't just him, either. His younger
brother Hashim, 20 years old, and so presumably also born in England, seems
to have been an accomplice to the bombing. He was arrested by authorities in
Libya on Tuesday. There's also a slightly older brother, 23-year-old Ismail,
arrested by British police in Manchester, also on Tuesday.
The father has been arrested, too, also in
Libya. The authorities there say he belongs to an extremist sect of Islam.
There's also a sister, 18-year-old
Jomana Abedi
, also born in Manchester, where she is studying molecular
biology with a view to advancing cancer research No, sorry, I got my news
stories mixed up there. Ms. Abedi actually works at a mosque, though I
haven't been able to discover what she does there.
@Anon
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open borders,
degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut culture for kids,
who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world histories.
It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania, and Ziomania
all over the world.
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
Sure, lack of assimilation is the culprit but as a "truther" might say,
this could well be an operation carried out by the deep state. Indeed,
someone put this kid up to this, supplied explosives and logistics, so
perhaps it was an Israeli plot, for certain some Anglo-Zionist one
percenter must be behind all of this. Naturally, as it is often published
here, white Europeans are superior to all other races so the kid was by
virtue of ancestry a lesser, defective human being to begin with
Manchester police announced where the Abedi family got the tens of
thousands of pounds that enabled them to fly back and forth from England
to several countries in the Middle East for years.
Welfare fraud and student loans funded the bombing. Apparently the
English student loan system does not require class attendance and
accumulation of credits to continue receiving loans.
BBC radio useful
idiot programs claim the Abedi brothers might have been bullied by evil
Whites. But they lived on the middle of the Libyan neighborhood so it's
unlikely they were bullied by Whites.
In 2004 the King of Jordan, the ruling Saud at the time in Saudi Arabia,
and Mucharraf in Pakistan all told senator Hollings that the only way to
end terrorism was to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since 2004 the west did nothing for peace, on the contrary, efforts to
destabilise the ME, and North Africa continued, an were intensified.
Deradicalisation is making Muslims believe that what they see happening
is not happening.
It may succeed in a few cases, but it so me seems impossible in general.
So attacks in the west will continue, it is, as Mearsheimer and Walt
write 'the strategy of the weak'.
On top of that, the west needs terrorism, if necessary does it herself,
in order to make the western societies more totalitarian all the time
'for our safety'.
The destabilisation in ME and N Africa causes massive migration, the
destabilisation of the European countries is welcome, in order to create
an Europe, a USA clone.
This latest Manchester bombing is the perfect illustration of the twofold
nature of the problem of invade the world/invite the world. Furthermore
it comes on top of another similarly perfect illustration of that twofold
nature, in the Orlando shootings. In both cases a 2nd generation
immigrant whose parents were only here because it suited the US/UK
regimes to have them here as oppositionist tools for the destabilisation
and overthrow of foreign governments, who in each case openly declare the
ongoing butchery our governments are responsible for in the ME and North
Africa as direct motivating factors for their own violence, was enabled
to attack their host nations by immigration.
Derbyshire's piece does a
good job of skewering the "invite the world" side of the issue, but
ignores "invade the world".
In 2011, you'll recall, Barack Obama, prompted by the Three
Horsegirls of the Apocalypse-Samantha Power of Obama's National
Security Council, his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and his Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton-who in turn were prompted by Britain and France,
with an assist from George Soros-overthrew Colonel Gaddafy.
Salman Abedi's parents thereupon, in 2011, returned to Libya.
Salman Abedi, then 17, stayed in the U.K.
That's barely the beginning of the story, with its murky elements of
the UK regime's security forces using jihadist terrorism as a weapon for
regime change in Libya and Syria, in which this family seem to have been
up to their necks. Even the BBC reported on some of these murky aspects
in the immediate aftermath of the bombing (though doubtless that line of
inquiry will be quietly dropped, or suppressed).
@Anon
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open borders,
degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut culture for kids,
who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world histories.
It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania, and Ziomania
all over the world.
"Others said he was a bit of a party animal, who drank vodka and
smoked weed daily, was popular with girls and "always clubbing or at
house parties", listening to rap and grime music. A young man, in
other words,
like so many others in Manchester: unconcerning,
unremarkable
. "
This is how the globalist media
want
us to live.
IIRC the 9/11 bombers liked clubbing, booze and strippers. Lots of
jihadists were petty criminals or drug dealers before the gods of their
far-off land repossessed their blood – and spilled ours
Salman's father Ramadan reportedly was a member of the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group back in the 90′s which had AQ links. Weren't those people
in cahoots with British intelligence back then in schemes to overthrow
Khaddafi? This explains his supposed resettlement in Britain; he was
connected. Also, Daily Mail has described him as a "former airport
security worker in the UK". Think about that one for a while. They were
reported to the authorities years ago but apparently they were allowed to
go on unencumbered. The son may have gone off and become a loose cannon
but otherwise there's a lot of murkiness involved with these people.
Like the author, I grew up in the UK in happier times and am now a US
citizen.
It is a pity that free speech no longer exists in England,
because prohibiting discussion of ideas skews all political debate. For
example, it is pretty obvious that the successful Brexit vote was pretty
much a plebiscite on unlimited immigration and loss of sovereignty,
except that it would be illegal to say so in a UK publication, as this
would be "hate speech."
However I do believe that the well-intended reason for the hate speech
laws is to prevent a bad situation getting even worse, rather than to
stop people from knowing what they can see with their own eyes.
I am reminded of a court case in the UK a few years ago in which a
well-known soap opera star was on trial for the rape of a 6 year old girl
several years earlier. Many UK readers were baffled by the story since
secrecy laws meant that nearly all the salient details of the case could
not be reported upon, nor were the media even allowed to say what they
were not allowed to report on.
For example, it was not clear why the girl and the allegist rapist
were living under the same roof. Had the public known that the girl in
question was the man's own daughter, and that the rape allegations were
part of a particularly nasty divorce dispute several years later, they
might have been better able to form an opinion of his guilt or innocence.
As it happens, the accused was acquitted, possible because forensic
medical evidence showed that the alleged victim was still a virgin at the
time of the trial, but it was a close run thing, and the judge directed
that jury that medical proof of the girl's virginity did not necessarily
mean that she has not been raped. (Whatever!)
When so much of public life and politics cannot be reported upon, it
is not surprising that people will arrive at false conclusions, or find
ways of protesting that which cannot be discussed.
We should be thankful that all these bombers and shooters leave behind
what those conspiracy nutcases might call magically indestructible
identification so the authorities can go straight to the perp's family
and friends. Apparently these imitators hope to outdo the ID that
survived 911 among incinerated debris in perfect condition. And we should
be doubly thankful that our loyal and patriotic msm have such incredible
journalists that they simultaneously uncover the same evidence and reach
exactly the same conclusions within minutes of each other.
@Alden
Manchester police announced where the Abedi family got the tens of
thousands of pounds that enabled them to fly back and forth from England
to several countries in the Middle East for years.
Welfare fraud and student loans funded the bombing. Apparently the
English student loan system does not require class attendance and
accumulation of credits to continue receiving loans.
BBC radio useful idiot programs claim the Abedi brothers might have been
bullied by evil Whites. But they lived on the middle of the Libyan
neighborhood so it's unlikely they were bullied by Whites.
@Swing
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
@jilles dykstra
In 2004 the King of Jordan, the ruling Saud at the time in Saudi Arabia,
and Mucharraf in Pakistan all told senator Hollings that the only way to
end terrorism was to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since 2004 the west did nothing for peace, on the contrary, efforts to
destabilise the ME, and North Africa continued, an were intensified.
Deradicalisation is making Muslims believe that what they see happening
is not happening.
It may succeed in a few cases, but it so me seems impossible in general.
So attacks in the west will continue, it is, as Mearsheimer and Walt
write 'the strategy of the weak'.
On top of that, the west needs terrorism, if necessary does it herself,
in order to make the western societies more totalitarian all the time
'for our safety'.
The destabilisation in ME and N Africa causes massive migration, the
destabilisation of the European countries is welcome, in order to create
an Europe, a USA clone.
Jun 27, 2016 What Does G4S Know About the Orlando Nightclub Massacre?
Much has been made in recent weeks of Omar Mateen's background. The
perpetrator of the Orlando, Fla., massacre was alternately a "radical
Islamist," a deeply closeted gay man, a wife abuser, a mental case,
everybody's best friend in high school and a loser. The list goes on. But
what the mainstream media-and the government, for that matter-have not
talked about is the fact that Mateen was employed at the time of his
crime by G4S, a London-based company that is one of the largest mercenary
firms in the world, with intelligence contractors deployed in war zones
and hot spots around the globe.
@Cyrano
The west has two faces in regards to the middle east. One is kind,
welcoming and accepting refugees and immigrants from the ME. The other
face of the west is also supposedly kind – it goes to Muslim counties and
helps them get rid of dictators – although nobody asked them to, but I
guess kindness cannot be contained. Unfortunately, in the process of
helping them reach the pinnacle of human achievement – democracy – the
west wrecks country after country in the ME. My point is that both faces
of the west are phony. You can't be kind and cruel at the same time. It
just doesn't work that way. One overrides the other and can't be
counterbalanced by phoniness.
@unit472
No doubt the murderer Abedi chose his target well. Western pop culture
threatens Islam a helluva of a lot more than democracy or capitalism. It
is assimilative and transcends race and national borders. Its not
possible to put this genie back in the bottle. That battle was lost with
Elvis and the Beatles.
... ... ...
If I ran the CIA I would put my efforts into creating an Islamic
Ariana Grande or forming some 'boy group' Saudi tweens would go crazy
over. Let the devout Muslim mom and dad experience the 'generation gap'.
@Corvinus
"If Muslims want to attack such degeneracy, they have my blessing."
Exactly what I thought. Justify the murder of people because you oppose
the ways they express themselves culturally. Listen, why don't YOU man up
and actually do something about the situation rather than be an armchair
warrior?
@Randal
His comment went too far, perhaps as hyperbole, when he endorsed murder,
for certain.
On the other hand, he was not really expressing sympathy for the
islamists per se as much as expressing agreement with some of their
positions, and that is certainly not unacceptable, treasonous or
perverse, unless you think we should allow our opinions to be determined
by what (a particular brand of) terrorists think.
That's a common trend in the modern US sphere, unfortunately (we must
embrace sexual perversion and general degenerate decadence or we are the
same as sunni muslim terrorists), to the ludicrous extent that we are now
told that opinions and attitudes that the vast majority of our ancestors
up until a couple of generations ago would have regarded as disgusting or
contemptible at best and abominations at worst are "British values" or
"European" or "western" values that we must defend to the death, and even
murder foreigners in order to impose them in their countries.
@LauraMR
Sure, lack of assimilation is the culprit but as a "truther" might say,
this could well be an operation carried out by the deep state. Indeed,
someone put this kid up to this, supplied explosives and logistics, so
perhaps it was an Israeli plot, for certain some Anglo-Zionist one
percenter must be behind all of this. Naturally, as it is often published
here, white Europeans are superior to all other races so the kid was by
virtue of ancestry a lesser, defective human being to begin with...
@Swing
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open
borders, degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut
culture for kids, who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world
histories. It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania,
and Ziomania all over the world.
Is Iran a threat to Europe? Is Indonesia (the largest "Islamic" country
in terms of population)?
The real Islamic threat, such as it is, is that propagated by Saudi
Arabia, a country which is embraced with open arms by Western governments
(and their arms industries). And which for some time now has had a de
facto alliance (or "united front" if you like) with Israel.
The Jew entertainment culture lures 8-year-old girls into concerts – then
an enemy of the Jews, kills them. It is called lose – lose!
What are
8-year-old girls doing at a concert where they yell and scream for hours
watching some immature adult bump and grind her intimate body parts,
singing sex empowerment songs.
Isn't there something very wrong about that scene?
Meanwhile – a 145-year-old venerable institution of Western
entertainment – was being closed down forever – Barnum & Bailey Circus.
8-year-olds at the circus are in danger of eating too much cotton candy.
Peace – Art
p.s. Jew entertainment have taken our youth from sugar highs, to sex
highs.
@biz
What about the ongoing Islamist terror campaigns in southern Thailand and
the Philippines, directed largely at Buddhists and tribal villagers? How
about the slow motion genocide of Melanesians in Irian Jaya at the hands
of Indonesian Muslims? Al Shabab slaughtering black Kenyans in a mall?
Are your 'zio-natos' responsible for those too?
@Diversity Heretic
John has in past columns expressed what I interpret as an anti-invasion
policy: wall the Middle East off. The wall keeps them out of the west and
keeps the west out of the Middle East. I concur. The West is following
the worse strategy possible: invade Middle Eastern countries and kill
Muslims, then invite Muslims with a grudge (sometimes justifiable) to
settle here.
madonna as interracist whore and 'pussy march' leader and her ilk have done
more harm than a handful of terrorists.
Terrorists kill a few hundred per year.
Weaponized celebrities are globo agents who colonize the minds of 100s of
millions of whites into accepting slut culture, interracism, 'diversity',
jungle fever, ACOWW, pederasty, 'gay marriage', 'inclusion', cuckery, etc.
Indeed, the reason why Manchester let in all those foreigners and continues
to self-hug itself with ugly anti-racist pseudo-virtue is because its people
have been mentally colonized by PC and pop culture.
Colonization of minds is more dangerous than killing a few.
Romans defeated the Jews and oppressed the Christians, but Christians
colonized Roman minds and Christians won. Romans fed few 100s of Christians
to lions, but Christians colonized the minds of millions of Romans. Today's
mass media spread not only ideas but idols on a global scale to billions of
people.
Pop Culture and PC are weaponized globalist jihad. Pop Culture is no longer
just for fun or a diversion. It is the MAIN culture for most white kids.
Kids worship celebrities as angels of globalism.
Those young white girls at the concert were being mentally colonized and
sensually manipulated into open borders for immigrant invaders and open
vaginas for black Africans.
The concert was a propaganda act of war.
Culture matters. This is why the Progs and Glob tear down Confederate
statues in the South. It is why they make movies like GET OUT, which are far
more dangerous than terror bombings. Terror kills a few 100. Pop Culture or
Prop Culture(as it is propaganda) colonize hundreds of millions of white
hearts/minds and EFFECTIVELY MURDER the patriot soul-spirit within them.
Soul-Murder of whites makes whites welcome invasion and their own
racial-territorial demise.
If you want to know why Manchester welcomed so much invasion and continue to
do so after the bombing, it is because white minds have been colonized by PC
and Pop Culture.
Indeed, these mentally-colonized whites hate terror bombings not because
such attacks are consequences of invasion but because they may strengthen
the nationalists who oppose immigrant-invasion.
Why do whites welcome immigrant-invasion? Because they've been mentally
colonized by PC and Pop Culture that says being a white woman means to whore
out to the world.
Suppose Nazis hadn't dropped bombs in UK in WWII but only propaganda
material from the air and succeeded in winning over the hearts and minds of
millions of Brits. That would have been more damaging.
It's like US took over so many nations with the 'soft power' of media,
academia, and entertainment. Take over minds, you take over souls. The
mind-colonized become your slaves.
Progs know the true meaning of culture as political instrument. This is why
they denounce D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION. They see it as more
than just a movie. They see it as proud statement of white racial
consciousness. This is why they wage culture war. Culture is a weapon. And
as mass media has access to every home via the TV, the TV is the open gate
thru which the globalisys get to attack and colonize your minds.
Why did Jews react so harshly to PASSION OF THE CHRIST? They saw it as
Culture War in favor of Christian Pride and Jewish Guilt. Why won't
Hollywood make a movie about Nakba or Knoxville Massacre? Because they can
be propaganda against Jewish power.
How did the West come to accept 'gay marriage'? Colonization of white minds
via Pop Culture and PC. PC and Pop Culture are globo-jihad.
They can also be violent. Look at BLM. Look at 'spreading democracy'. Look
at destruction of Libya and coup in Ukraine. Look at destruction of
Christian businesses for not baking 'gay wedding cake'. Globalism uses both
soft jihad and hard jihad. Indeed, even the unleashing of ISIS and Alqaeda
is the result of globalism's war on enemies of Israel. Zionist-globalists
undermined Arab regimes and let ISIS run riot to mess things up. Thus,
Islmic Jihadis are both agents of globalism and its enemy(as Muslims hate
western degeneracy).
Anyway, the real shame is that whites acquiesced to defeat at hands of
globalists without resitance and violence.
I think part of the reason why white rightists rag on Muslim terrorists is
this: Muslims have guts enough to resist globalism(even as they've been
enabled by it). In contrast, even white patriots make a lot of noise but are
afraid to take real action.
There was a time when whites would have used violence against those who'd
dare to stick homo flags in churches, push 'gay marriage' and destroy
Christian bakers, and tear down Confederate statues.
But whites, even right wing ones, don't fight back but only complain NO
MATTER HOW MUCH THEY ARE HUMILIATED, ABUSED, AND ATTACKED. Only the Alt
Right did some pushing back at Berkeley.
So, when they see the courage of Muslim terrorists, they call them 'losers'
and 'cowards'.
Really? The real cowards are whites who do nothing while General Lee statue
is torn down. Real cowards are whites who do nothing while Trump reneges on
all his promises. Real cowards are white men who raise their girls to whore
out to Negroes. Real cowards are white men who let freaks turn big cities
into homo celebration centers and invoke homomania as 'western value' that
must be defended from Muslims. Real cowards are whites who praise Jewish
globalists who are behind homomania, the attack on Confederate culture, open
borders, and Afro-colonization of white wombs.
Compared to these loser white cowards, at least Muslim terrorists take
action against globalist filth.
A Palestinian child with a rock in west Bank has more guts than all white
men in the West who cuck out to Jewish globalists, homo freaks, and black
thugs.
White fathers who let their girls attend that concert are far worse scum
than the terrorist who blew it up.
A Palestinian child with a rock in west Bank has more guts than all white
men in the West who cuck out to Jewish globalists, homo freaks, and black
thugs.
White fathers who let their girls attend that concert are far worse scum
I often call them human urinals
white "men" so filled with racial self-loathing that they symbolically allow
themselves to be pissed on to mollify their excruciating self-hatred
I condemn the terrorist with all my breath, but I have to admit, he isn't
perhaps as morally execrable as the white men who sat by in Rotherham as
their daughters were being passed around
A symbolic pinprick pipe bomb attack on a slut fest and the Brits are
cringing and whining like school girls. At least the muzzies take their
losses (100 to 300/day, mostly civilians) like men without all the
moralizing and faggy hysteria. It's embarrassing
"... If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement. ..."
"... Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated ..."
"... The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Conservative Review ..."
"... Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems ..."
"... Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere. ..."
"... President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924. ..."
"... European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses. ..."
"... My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. ..."
"... Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that. ..."
If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is
supposed to have said,
then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement.
Thus the Ruling Class's
Trayvon Martin ,
Ferguson
and
Baltimore frenzies came and went, shamelessly unaffected by repeated
Narrative Collapses -- inexplicable, unless you were aware of Left's amoral imperative to incite
its black clients against the white American majority.
It's as simple as this: If the Evil Party gets control of the House of Representatives, Trump
was
always going to be impeached, regardless of what he did. (Conviction, which requires 67 Senate
votes, might be more difficult-although Democrats probably assume any Republican President could
be guilted into capitulation,
like Richard Nixon,
unlike Bill
Clinton ).
The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical
proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system
- and should be more broadly applied, by a patriot Congress, not just to Presidents but to
bureaucrats and
kritarchs
.
Buchanan's book is important and powerful-but somber: he's not joking at all with the last four
words of his title, although he doesn't dwell on it. It's a theme that has increasingly appeared
in his recent columns,
here and
here
and
here .
... ... ...
Buchanan vividly recreates the MSM-hyped atmosphere of crisis in Washington in the fall of 1969,
now completely forgotten but at the time an incipient elite coup even more serious than anything
yet seen under Trump:
Directly ahead was the largest antiwar protest in US history, October 15, when hundreds of
thousands were expected on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. Major
media had become propagandists for the antiwar movement and were beating the drums for getting
out of Vietnam now. It seemed as though the fate of Lyndon Johnson, his presidency broken by the
Tet Offensive in 1968 and his humiliation by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, could be ours as
well. David Broder of the Washington Post saw President Nixon's situation as did I. "It
is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon
Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969," wrote Broder on October 7.
"The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."
This was a particularly dangerous situation for Nixon because his Republican Party controlled
neither Senate nor House. In theory, the Democrats could have wrested policy from him at any point,
although in those days the prestige of the Presidency and respect for its prerogatives, sacralized
by years of Democratic dominance, was still a serious inhibition.
Contrary to his current
Demon King image, Nixon had responded after his election very much as Trump (notwithstanding
his more abrasive rhetoric) has done: appeasement.
... ... ...
Needless to say, appeasement did not work for either man. Partly this was because both provoked
a really peculiar blind personal hatred from the political class -- "for reasons I could not comprehend,"
says Buchanan in the case of Nixon, "given his centrist politics and even liberal policies "
... ... ...
Although it's now hard to imagine, the Main Stream Media had been as generally respected as the
office of the Presidency itself. Agnew and Buchanan burst that bubble for good.
.... ... ...
What this means in the current situation is clear: Trump must wheel and fight. And he must fight
on the issue that elected him, which poses an existential threat to the American nation (and, incidentally,
the GOP) that is even more serious than global Communism: mass out-of-control non-traditional immigration,
which out-of-control Leftist
judicial imperialists have now made unmistakably clear they intend to read into the constitution.
Trump must make clear (especially to cowardly Republican Congressman) that the survival of the Historic
American Nation is inextricable from his own.
Block funding for all refugees and visas from the Middle East for the remainder of the fiscal
year. Further enforce provisions of the INA that strip the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate
rejections of visas. Pass a supplemental funding bill for the border wall and the construction
of a visa exit-entry tracking system, a goal Democrats officially support and that has been
passed by Congress numerous times since 1996.
In order to accomplish this or anything else, Congressional Republicans need to modify the
filibuster rules. Otherwise, they face electoral oblivion. It's time they actually confront the
issues of our time and harness the news cycle to pass common-sense national security bills. The
president must use the bully pulpit and his status as leader of the party to craft specific proposals
for the do-nothing Congress. Then, place the onus on them to act. He should give a televised address
from the Oval Office outlining his response to the growing threat of homegrown terrorism and demanding
action from Congress to deal with the courts.
Or we could just use up this once-in-generation electoral mandate on naming post offices and
continuing every major Obama policy.
He continued Johnson's suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible
ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign
at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South.
Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying
and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys
were hard to find anywhere.
President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases
near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World
War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924.
This would cost little and could be paid for by existing Army operational and training funding,
and could be done in a matter of weeks. Congress would have no say and no permission is required.
Anyone who doubts this has been confused by corporate propaganda and can learn from reading this.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm
Dat Trump zichzelf als brexiteer ziet en het anti-Europese populisme aanmoedigt, vormt een
breuk met alles waar het naoorlogse Amerika voor staat.
The above is written by a Dutch journalist living in Berlin, Van Baar, a pro EU writer.
Translation:
That Trump sees himself as brexiteer and encourages anti European populism, is a rupture with
all that post WWII USA has as values.
Van Baar is quite right, Trump wants good relations with Russia, this does not fit in with
EU expansion plans, the Ukraine association, an association with a military paragraph.
European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer
supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor.
Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do
not see the need for high military expenses.
The last volume is almost finished. Each of those books is a superb piece of research and writing.
It's taken him around 35 years in total. The last volume (LBJ 1968-dead) ought to be coming out
soon. And his biggest problem? Almost everyone that knew all the players is gone. Especially those
who knew of LBJ's ongoing corruptions to his end.
My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was
an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. Other than that, it's on the money, Trump
really needs to come out swinging.
I have always despised the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is an unrepentant Cold
Warrior. The Cold War which imposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Maxine Waters) on us was
a high speed highway-Route 1964-to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=The Native Born
White American Extermination Act.
Immigration to the USA should be severely curtailed ..starting with Brits like Brimmie.
Scratch
a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that.
All evidence
points to the loss of the Vietnam War on the battlefield, and the complete collapse of the US
civilian military. All evidence points to the exceptional stupidity of a land war in Asia.
Evidence
is no problem for a Brit imperialist ..just ignore it and assert we were stabbed in the back by
an evil cabal in the US Knesset er Congress. As to Nixon and Buchanan ..they are relics from a
bygone age when white people were 90% of the population and Americans still worked for a living
i.e. growing, building, repairing something. Times change ..the white silent majority has disappeared
and so will the ragtag American empire.
With Trump now officially joining this ugly alliance,
the US will contribute the military "expertise" of a country which can't
even take Mosul, mostly because its forces are hiding, literally, behind the
backs of Kurdish and Arab Iraqis. To think that these three want to take on
Hezbollah, Iran and Russia would be almost comical if it wasn't for the kind
of appalling bloodshed that this will produce.
Alas, just look at what the Saudis are
doing to Yemen, what the Israelis did to Gaza or Lebanon or what the US did
to Iraq and you will immediately get a sense of what the formation of this
nefarious alliance will mean for the people of Syria and the rest of the
region. The record shows that a military does not need to be skilled at real
warfare to be skilled at murdering people: even though the US occupation of
Iraq was, in military terms, a total disaster, it did result in almost
one and a half million dead people
.
What is also clear is who the main target
of this evil alliance will be:
Iran, the only real democracy in the Middle-East
. The pretext? Why –
weapons of mass destruction, of course: the (non-existing) chemical weapons
of the Syrians and the (non-existing) nuclear weapons of the Iranians. In
Trump's own words
: "
no civilized nation can tolerate the massacre of
innocents with chemical weapons
" and "
The United States is firmly
committed to keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and halting their
support of terrorists and militias that are causing so much suffering and
chaos throughout the Middle East
". Nothing new here. As for how this
evil alliance will fight when it does not have any boots worth putting on
the ground? Here, again, the solution as simple as it is old: to use the
ISIS/al-Qaeda takfiri crazies as cannon fodder for the US, Israel and the
KSA. This is just a re-heated version of the "brilliant" Brzezinski plan on
how to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Back to the future indeed. And
should the "good terrorists" win, by some kind of miracle, in Syria, then
turn them loose against against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against the Shias
in Iraq and Iran. Who knows, with some (a lot) of luck, the Empire might
even be able to re-kindle the "Caucasus Emirate" somewhere on the southern
borders of Russia, right?
Wrong.
For one thing, the locals are not
impressed. Here is what the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah,
had to say about this
:
"The Israelis, are betting on Isis and
all this takfiri project in the region but in any case they know, the
Israelis, the Americans, and all those who use the takfiris, that this is
a project without any future. I tell you, and I also reassure everyone
through this interview. This project has no future."
The problem is that the Americans do
not know our region and those who advise US officials are misleading them
It is pretty clear who these 'advisors'
are: the Saudis and the Israelis. Their intentions are also clear: to get
the Americans to do their dirty work for them while remaining as far back as
possible. You could say that the Saudis and Israelis are trying to get the
Americans to do for them what the Americans are trying to get the Kurds to
do for them in Iraq: be their cannon fodder. The big difference is that the
Kurds at least clearly understand what is going on whereas the Americans
are, indeed, clueless.
Not all Americans, of course. Many fully
understand what is happening. A good example of this acute awareness is
what b had to say on Moon of Alabama
after reading the transcript of the
press briefing of Secretary of Defense Mattis, General Dunford and Special
Envoy McGurk on the Campaign to Defeat ISIS:
My first thought after reading its was:
"These people live in a different world. They have no idea how the real
word works on the ground. What real people think, say, and are likely to
do." There was no strategic thought visible. Presented were only some
misguided tactical ideas.
A senior British reporter, the Secretary
General of Hezbollah, the President of Iran and a US blogger all seem to
agree on one thing: there is no real US "policy" at work here, what we are
seeing is a dangerous exercise in pretend-strategy which cannot result in
anything but chaos and defeat.
So why is the Trump administration plowing
ahead with this nonsense?
The reasons are most likely a combination
of internal US politics and a case of "
if
all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail
". The anti-Trump
color revolution
cum
coup d'état
which
the Neocons and the US deep state started even before Trump actually got
into the White House
has never stopped and all the signs are that the
anti-Trump forces will only rest once Trump is impeached and, possibly,
removed from office. In response to this onslaught, all that Trump initially
could come up with was to sacrifice his closest allies and friends (Flynn,
Bannon) in the vain hope that this would appease the Neocons. Then he began
to
mindlessly endorse their "policies"
. Predictably this has not worked
either. Then Trump even tried floating
the idea of having Joe Lieberman for FBI director
before
getting 'cold feet' and chaning his position yet again
. And all the
while while Trump is desperately trying to appease them, the Neocons are
doubling-down, doubling-down again and then doubling-down some more. It is
pretty clear by now that Trump does not have what it takes in terms of
allies or even personal courage to tackle the swamp he promised to drain. As
a result what we are seeing now looks like a repeat of the last couple of
years of the Obama administration: a total lack of vision or even a general
policy, chaos in the Executive Branch and a foreign policy characterized by
a multiple personality disorder which see the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, the
CIA and the White House all pursuing completley different policies in
pursuit of completely different goals. In turn, each of these actors engages
in what (they think) they do best: the Pentagon bombs, the State Department
pretends to negotiate, the CIA engages in more or less covert operation in
support of more or less "good terrorists" while the White House focuses its
efforts on trying to make the President look good or, at least, in control
of something.
Truth be told, Trump has nothing at all to
show so far:
Russia
: according to rumors spread
by the US, former corporate executive Rex Tillerson was supposed to go to
Moscow to deliver some kind of ultimatum. Thank God that did not happen.
Instead Tillerson spent several hours talking to Lavrov and then a couple
more talking to Putin. More recently, Lavrov was received by Tillerson in
the US and, following that meeting, he also met with Trump. Following all
these meetings no tangible results were announced. What does that mean? Does
that mean that nothing was achieved? Not at all, what was achieved is that
the Russians clearly conveyed to the Americans two basic thing: first, that
there were not impressed by their sabre-rattling and, second, that as long
as the US was acting as a brain-dead elephant in a porcelain store there was
no point for Russian to work with the US. To his credit, Trump apparently
backed down and even tried to make a few conciliatory statements. Needless
to say, the US Ziomedia crucified him for being "too friendly" with The
Enemy. The outcome now is, of course, better than war with Russia, but
neither is it some major breakthrough as Trump had promised (and, I believe,
sincerely hoped for) during his campaign.
DPRK/PRC
: what had to happen did,
of course happen: all the sabre-rattling with three aircraft carriers strike
groups ended up being a gigantic flop as neither the North Koreans nor the
Chinese were very impressed. If anything, this big display of Cold War era
hardware was correctly interpreted not as a sign of strength, but a sign of
weakness. Trump wasted a lot of money and a lot of time, but he has
absolutely nothing to show for it. The DPRK tested yet another intermediate
range missile yesterday. Successfully, they say.
The Ukraine
: apparently Trump
simply does not care about the Ukraine and, frankly, I can't blame him.
Right now the situation there is so bad that no outside power can
meaningfully influence the events there any more. I would argue that in this
case, considering the objective circumstances, Trump did the right thing
when he essentially "passed the baby" to Merkel and the EU: let them try to
sort out this bloody mess as it is primarily their problem. Karma, you know.
So, all in all, Trump has nothing to show
in the foreign policy realm. He made a lot of loud statements, followed by
many threats, but at the end of the day somebody apparently told him "we
can't do that, Mr President" (and thank God for that anonymous hero!). Once
this reality began to sink in all which was left is to create an illusion of
foreign policy, a make-believe reality in which the US is still a superpower
which can determine the outcome of any conflict. Considering that the
AngloZionist Empire is, first and foremost, what Chris Hedges calls an "
Empire
of Illusions
" it only makes sense for its President to focus on creating
spectacles and photo opportunities. Alas, the White House is so clueless
that it manages to commit major blunders even when trying to ingratiate
itself with a close ally. We saw that during the recent Trump trip to Saudi
Arabia when both Melania and Ivanka Trump
refused to cover their heads while in Riyadh but did so when they visited
the Pope in the Vatican
. As the French say, this was "worse than a
crime, it was a blunder" which speaks a million words about the contempt in
which the American elites hold the Muslim world.
There is another sign that the US is
really scraping the bottom of the barrel: Rex Tillerson has now declared
that "
NATO
should formally join the anti-Daesh coalition
". In military terms, NATO
is worse than useless for the US: the Americans are much better off fighting
by themselves than involving a large number of "pretend armies" who could
barely protect themselves in a real battlefield. Oh sure, you can probably
scrape a halfway decent battalion here, maybe even a regiment there, but all
in all NATO forces are useless, especially for ground operations. They, just
like the Saudis and Israelis, prefer to strike from the air, preferably
protected by USAF AWACs, and never to get involved in the kind of ugly
infantry fighting which is taking place in Syria. For all their very real
faults and problems, at least the Americans do have a number of truly combat
capable units, such as the Marines and some Army units, which are
experienced and capable of giving the Takfiris a run for their money. But
the Europeans? Forget it!
It is really pathetic to observe the
desperate efforts of the Trump Administration to create some kind of halfway
credible anti-Daesh coalition while strenuously avoiding to look at the
simple fact that the only parties which can field a large number of combat
capable units to fight Daesh are the Iranians, Hezbollah and, potentially,
the Russians. This is why Iranian President Rouhani
recently declared
that
"Who fought against the terrorists? It
was Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia. But who funded the terrorists?
Those who fund terrorists cannot claim they are fighting against them"
and "Who can say regional stability can be restored without Iran? Who can
say the region will experience total stability without Iran?"
In truth, even the Turks and the Kurds
don't really have what it would take to defeat Daesh in Syria. But the worst
mistake of the US generals is that they are still pretending as if a large
and experienced infantry force like Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc could be
defeated without a major ground offensive. That won't happen.
So Trump can dance with the Wahabis and
stand in prayer at the wailing wall, but all his efforts to determine the
outcome of the war in Syria are bound to fail: far from being a superpower,
the US has basically become irrelevant, especially in the Middle East. This
is why Russia, Iran and Turkey are now attempting to create a trilateral "US
free" framework to try to change the conditions on the ground. The very best
the US are still capable of is to sabotage those efforts and needlessly
prolong the carnage in Syria and Iraq. That is both pathetic and deeply
immoral.
* * *
When I saw Trump dancing with his Saudi
pals I immediately thought of the movies "Dances with Wolves" and "Titanic".
Empires often end in violence and chaos, but Trump has apparently decided to
add a good measure of ridicule to the mix. The tragedy is that neither the
United States nor the rest of the planet can afford that kind of ridicule
right now, especially not the kind of ridicule which can very rapidly
escalate in an orgy of violence. With the European politicians paralyzed in
a state subservient stupor to the Rothschild gang, Latin America ravaged by
(mostly US-instigated) crises and the rest of the planet trying to stay
clear from the stumbling ex-superpower, the burden to try to contain this
slow-motion train wreck falls upon Russia and China.
As for Trump, he made a short speech
before NATO leaders today. He spoke about the "
threats from Russia and on
NATO's eastern and southern borders
". QED.
{Tillerson was supposed to go to Moscow to deliver some kind of
ultimatum.}
What kind of so-called
'ultimatum'
could
Tillerson possibly deliver to Moscow? What hasn't Washington already
'ultimatumed'
to Russia that has failed to force Russia to submit to
Washington's will:
1) Assault on the Ruble: failed.
2) Engineered oil price collapse: failed.
3) Sanctions: failed.
4) Syria: failed.
5) ..
{Thank God that did not happen.}
And as Mr. Spock said to Dr. Bones in one of the episodes " ..the
Deity had nothing to do with it: it was my cross-linking to B that did
it ..": Deity had nothing to do with it. It was thems 8,000 or so nuclear
warheads that Russia has that did it. US issues ultimatums only to
countries that can't bite back, like telling Saddam he has 48 hours to
get, and then promptly invading.
@Avery
{Tillerson was supposed to go to Moscow to deliver some kind of
ultimatum.}
What kind of so-called
'ultimatum'
could Tillerson possibly
deliver to Moscow? What hasn't Washington already
'ultimatumed'
to
Russia that has failed to force Russia to submit to Washington's will:
1) Assault on the Ruble: failed.
2) Engineered oil price collapse: failed.
3) Sanctions: failed.
4) Syria: failed.
5) ........
And as Mr. Spock said to Dr. Bones in one of the episodes ".....the Deity
had nothing to do with it: it was my cross-linking to B that did
it.....": Deity had nothing to do with it. It was thems 8,000 or so
nuclear warheads that Russia has that did it. US issues ultimatums only
to countries that can't bite back, like telling Saddam he has 48 hours to
get,...and then promptly invading.
I've been waiting for someone to point out the
silliness of asking Russia and China to sanction North Korea, when the US
currently has sanctions on Russia and is threatening China in the South
China sea. Maybe that is what Lavrov talked about with Trump.
Here is Jack Perry's take on the war against ISIS Inc:
"If there's one
thing Democrats and Republicans can agree upon, it's war. Both of them
never saw a war they didn't like unless the other party started it, it's
going badly, and it's an election year."
"They want to declare war this time as opposed to just start bombing
and worry about legality later. Okay, but who will they send the
declaration of war to? ISIS is a non-state entity. What, will they just
Twitter it out and hope ISIS cadre picks it up? In reality, what they
better understand is this: When it's a non-state entity, you can't sign a
cease-fire with them, either. Therefore, how will the U.S. exit this war,
since cease-fires are its preferred route to getting someone else to take
over the payments?"
"let's keep in mind the U.S. government has technically been fighting
ISIS via an air war for a few years now and we haven't seen the "For
Sale" sign up at ISIS, Inc. so far. Let's also not forget the United
States government could not find Osama bin Laden for several years, has
not defeated al-Qaida for these 15 years plus since 9/11, and didn't even
defeat the Taliban over in Afghanistan where the U.S. military still
remains today. And now they want to mortgage our future in order to buy
the ISIS Boardwalk piece on the World Monopoly board?! Excuse me, but say
what?! "
The real answer is to stop supporting the fanatical Wahhabism of Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf state and shutdown their religious schools that
export radical Islam:
See how Ramzan Kadyrov the President of Chechnya successfully
reeducates Muslims who lose their way and make the mistake of listening
to Wahhabist Imams:
Likewise it is important to stop supporting Israel and their radical
Jewish doctrine and close down their concentration camp, eliminate their
chemical, biological and radiological weapons stockpiles, and close down
their support for Al Qaeda and their allies including ISIS.
Providing an apology to the sailors of the USS Liberty for their
sacrifice and abandonment by the US government for the last 50 years is
also in order. This shameful treatment of these US military is a major
stain on America.
A useful article, as is always the case with our fine Saker.
Though I
cannot understand why writers continue to follow the trawler like the
seagulls waiting for the sardines, (a nod in the direction of King
Eric!). Trump has been proven, as Obama was proven, and many before him,
to be nominally a script reader, a totem for the masses to look towards
as their 'leader' when the reality is that the government of the US
especially and most obviously is merely tangible facet of a much bigger
group. In short, Trump is a businessman given the chance to make a few
extra millions and go down in history as a President. All he has to do is
try to keep his mouth shut, make these visits to other countries for
effect, make speeches given to him by others and he gets more gold and
his place in history. It is all theatre
The real power is so obviously in Israel, alongside old and new money,
the military industrial complex which is spearheaded by the US and
UK with the mass media another major power group and connected.
Pharmaceutical and Agricultural corporations have also risen to huge
prominence. Essentially, the 'government' is mainly for show.
Trump has forged no new alliance. The KSa is run by immensely dodgy
fiends who might even be Jews themselves. The two countries are an axis
or seat of power in the region with the same aims, the same MO, the same
funding, arming and support of the same militant groups. Anyway, much of
this is outlined by the Saker.
However, as I have seen elsewhere, this idea of the europeans being so
weak and offering nothing on the power stage is either very poor
reporting or some form of racism. The secret services of the Uk are
involved in likely every theatre of war around the globe. They simply do
not allow themselves to be so easily seen as the CIA or other military
facets of the US death machine.
I suspect the French also are very well connected and hugely involved.
Behind the scenes. Mainly the Brits though. Always have been, always will
be. Their bread and butter is serving interests well beyond the
government, nothing to do with the people. I would also add that some of
the special forces at least in the motherland (England to me) are revered
as much as feared across the globe this has been confirmed to me by
soldiers, not just what I have read.
Also, still on Europe, well at least the UK Unlike the US, which
managed to elect a racist, misogynist, bigot, the UK voted in enough
numbers for their independence. They also have provided enough support
from the people, not the Establishment to present to the world a
candidate of decency, purity of heart and integrity, the likes of which
have not been seen in the US, at such a high level, not anywhere else a
handful of latin american countries, for many moons indeed.
The witch hunt against him from his own party, from the Conservatives,
from the mass media, from his so called 'friends' is a disgrace, yet the
mere fact the people have caused such a tidal wave to even give such a
man a chance, brings me pride and a slither, fast fading as it will
prove, of hope
Too many writers generalize Europe too much for me to conclude
anything other than their experience of Europe comes from words on a
screen rather than practical living in the countries and peoples they
write of.
The Dutch university professors Laslo Maracs and Wolfferen agree, Trump
understands that eight years Obama cannot be continued, leads the USA to
political and economic ruin.
China and Russia were driven together, the economic centre of the world
moved from the Atlantic to Central Asia.
John Maynard Keynes already knew, 'ideas are the most powerful in the
world', even obsolete ideas as the west controlling the world.
This is the obstruction by CNN, Washpost and NYT, they do not understand
that their world no longer exists.
Trump, in the view of the mentioned profs, and in mine, is manoevring
cautiously in order to change history, as Roosevelt needed some seven
years to get the USA people in the mood for war, Trump maybe needs as
many years to remove the mood for war from the USA.
Trump has to move cautiously, I do not think he believes the Oswald story
about the murder of Kennedy.
Trump may be influenced by the MIC and major industry groups, but they
are not the deep state, which should be narrowly defined as Israel
itself, its fifth column, and those elements in gov and the media who
succeeded in pulling off and covering up 911, without which we wouldn't
be dealing with any of this.
What I find alarming is Conservativism
Inc's willingness to accept the preposterous official narrative about 911
while "bravely" challenging gov data and narratives in all other
respects. Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan on down are willing to throw
out over one thousand years of Western development regarding the rational
relationship between evidence and conclusion, and not least the
scientific method, to support what amounts to fantastical storytelling.
I find it helpful to pull up Google images of these conservative
opposition voices, almost invariably cowardly looking little nerds, to
understand why we are being neutralized instead of organized to fight the
deep state and in our efforts to restore order.
@Johan Nagel
A useful article, as is always the case with our fine Saker.
Though I
cannot understand why writers continue to follow the trawler like the
seagulls waiting for the sardines, (a nod in the direction of King
Eric!). Trump has been proven, as Obama was proven, and many before him,
to be nominally a script reader, a totem for the masses to look towards
as their 'leader' when the reality is that the government of the US
especially and most obviously is merely tangible facet of a much bigger
group. In short, Trump is a businessman given the chance to make a few
extra millions and go down in history as a President. All he has to do is
try to keep his mouth shut, make these visits to other countries for
effect, make speeches given to him by others and he gets more gold and
his place in history. It is all theatre...
The real power is so obviously in Israel, alongside old and new money,
the military industrial complex which is spearheaded by the US and
UK...with the mass media another major power group and connected.
Pharmaceutical and Agricultural corporations have also risen to huge
prominence. Essentially, the 'government' is mainly for show.
Trump has forged no new alliance. The KSa is run by immensely dodgy
fiends who might even be Jews themselves. The two countries are an axis
or seat of power in the region with the same aims, the same MO, the same
funding, arming and support of the same militant groups. Anyway, much of
this is outlined by the Saker.
However, as I have seen elsewhere, this idea of the europeans being so
weak and offering nothing on the power stage is either very poor
reporting or some form of racism. The secret services of the Uk are
involved in likely every theatre of war around the globe. They simply do
not allow themselves to be so easily seen as the CIA or other military
facets of the US death machine.
I suspect the French also are very well connected and hugely involved.
Behind the scenes. Mainly the Brits though. Always have been, always will
be. Their bread and butter is serving interests well beyond the
government, nothing to do with the people. I would also add that some of
the special forces at least in the motherland (England to me) are revered
as much as feared across the globe...this has been confirmed to me by
soldiers, not just what I have read.
Also, still on Europe, well at least the UK...Unlike the US, which
managed to elect a racist, misogynist, bigot, the UK voted in enough
numbers for their independence. They also have provided enough support
from the people, not the Establishment to present to the world a
candidate of decency, purity of heart and integrity, the likes of which
have not been seen in the US, at such a high level, not anywhere else a
handful of latin american countries, for many moons indeed.
The witch hunt against him from his own party, from the Conservatives,
from the mass media, from his so called 'friends' is a disgrace, yet the
mere fact the people have caused such a tidal wave to even give such a
man a chance, brings me pride and a slither, fast fading as it will
prove, of hope...
Too many writers generalize Europe too much for me to conclude
anything other than their experience of Europe comes from words on a
screen rather than practical living in the countries and peoples they
write of.
NB. Also, for a bit of fun, I used a couple of introductions of
characters from Dostoyevsky's The Devils, as I watched interviews with
Corbyn and May last night, and tailored the text to provide...Fyodor's
analysis of the candidates!>> http://thedissolutefox.com/profiling-the-candidates-uk-elections-corbyn-and-may/
)
Trump may be influenced by the MIC and major industry groups, but they are not the deep state,
which should be narrowly defined as Israel itself, its fifth column, and those elements in gov
and the media who succeeded in pulling off and covering up 911, without which we wouldn't be
dealing with any of this.
What I find alarming is Conservativism Inc's willingness to accept
the preposterous official narrative about 911 while "bravely" challenging gov data and narratives
in all other respects. Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan on down are willing to throw out over
one thousand years of Western development regarding the rational relationship between evidence
and conclusion, and not least the scientific method, to support what amounts to fantastical
storytelling.
I find it helpful to pull up Google images of these conservative opposition voices, almost
invariably cowardly looking little nerds, to understand why we are being neutralized instead of
organized to fight the deep state and in our efforts to restore order.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the
world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is
to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a
portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and
al-Qaeda clones.
This approach of not blaming Muslims in
general but targeting "radicalisation" or simply "evil" may appear sensible
and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in
Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less
identifiable than it really is. Such generalities have the unfortunate
effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of
Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs
and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.
The ultimate inspiration for such people
is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam
dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and
Isis. This is an exclusive creed, intolerant of all who disagree with it
such as secular liberals, members of other Muslim communities such as the
Shia or women resisting their chattel-like status.
What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the
core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has
carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent
conclusion. Shia and Yazidis were not just heretics in the eyes of this
movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should
be massacred or enslaved. Any woman who transgressed against repressive
social mores should be savagely punished. Faith should be demonstrated by a
public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86
Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April
or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday
night.
The real causes of "radicalisation" have
long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer
to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of
anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately,
that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers "have nothing to do
with Islam". This has been the track record of US and UK governments since
9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the
causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided
in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community
of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region
when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni
sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years
is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become
an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to
Saudi financial support.
A further sign of the
Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the
attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay
night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena
this week have one thing in common. They were all
frequented by young people enjoying entertainment and a
lifestyle which made them an Isis or al-Qaeda target.
But these are also events where the mixing of men and
women or the very presence of gay people is denounced
by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike. They both
live in a cultural environment in which the
demonisation of such people and activities is the norm,
though their response may differ.
The culpability of
Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own
citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to.
Leaders want to have a political and commercial
alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states.
They have never held them to account for supporting a
repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to
have inspired Salman Abedi. Details of his motivation
may be lacking, but the target of his attack and the
method of his death is classic al-Qaeda and Isis in its
mode of operating.
The reason these two
demonic organisations were able to survive and expand
despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars
spent on "the war on terror" after 9/11 is that those
responsible for stopping them deliberately missed the
target and have gone on doing so. After 9/11, President
Bush portrayed Iraq not Saudi Arabia as the enemy; in a
re-run of history President Trump is ludicrously
accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in
the Middle East. This is the real 9/11 conspiracy,
beloved of crackpots worldwide, but there is nothing
secret about the deliberate blindness of British and
American governments to the source of the beliefs that
has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only
the latest – and certainly not the last – horrible
example.
(Reprinted from The Independent by permission of author
or representative)
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
@Godfree Roberts
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
Why do those responsible deliberately miss the
target and have gone on doing so? Because they all
profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war
industry and its various 'communities', the Jews.
the media, you name it, they're all in it for fun
and profit. None of them would have an income if it
all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you know,
peace whatever that is.
They can manufacture an
invasion of Iraq based on non-existent WMDs as
punishment for 911, when apparently the real
culprits were supposed to be Saudis. They can
pretend that the conflict in Syria is a 'civil war'
rather than a proxy invasion by the US, Saudi Arabia
and other Arab states. They can manufacture groups
like Al-Qaeda and ISIS but pretend that these groups
arose independently from their own funding,
operations and just plain meddling in everybody
else's business. They can pretend that Iran is the
major sponsor of terrorism in the ME when clearly it
isn't. They can bullshit really anything they want
and everybody just buys it.
If they can do all this, then 911 ought not be
too difficult either. The press and so-called
intellectual class just buys into whatever the
narrative is supposed to be. Karl Rove's statement
that 'the empire can create it's own reality now' is
fairly obviously a sly reference to 911. How does
the empire get to this level of expertise? Clearly a
military industrial complex funded to the tune of a
trillion dollars per year that can research any
problem and do whatever it wants could run such a
project without much difficulty. It can also buy off
the press and influence the intellectual classes in
all sorts of ways that conform to some manual in
some top secret facility that nobody has ever heard
of and never will.
The release of the redacted 28 pages shows that
Prince Bandar, good friend of the Bush family,
funded two the supposed hijackers for a year while
they prepared for the 'attack'. This indicates
without any doubt that the hijackers were Saudi
intelligence assets pretending to be hijackers.
(Unless you are wacky enough to believe that Prince
Bandar, good friend of the Bush family, secretly
sought to stab his good friends in the back by
committing a heavy atrocity upon them, or at least
didn't tell them about it in advance). So its
obvious that the Saudis were running the hijacker
side of the 911 operation for their good friends in
America because thats what good friends do. That's
why the hijackers were Saudi, rather than say Iraqi
or Iranian, and thats why America didn't invade the
Saudis as punishment for the terrible deed.
Of course we also know that the CIA let these
same two hijackers, or rather Saudi intelligence
assets, into the United States without telling the
FBI about it although it had several occasions to do
so. How odd, yet these same two hijackers, or rather
Saudi intelligence assets, were known terrorists and
the CIA definitely knew all about them.
Please Mr Cockburn can you explain in your own
words why believing 911 was an inside job is somehow
crackpot?
@The Anti-Gnostic
So how come these attacks only happen in proudly
tolerant, liberal countries at venues like teen
concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock
concert halls? I'd venture to say the victims were
probably 90+% opposed to Middle Eastern wars or
discrimination against Muslims.
We Know What Inspired the Manchester Attack –
We Just Won't Admit It
No, you won't, it seems.
You'll happily point to wahhabism as one of the
contributory factors. I'd have thought you would be
prepared to point to the history of aggressive US
sphere military intervention in muslim countries,
though you seem a little coy about that in this
case, presumably so as not to distract from your
case against wahhabism, which so conveniently ties
in with your bête noir Trump's recent stupidity in
Saudi Arabia.
But you won't ever admit that immigration is one
of the prime factors.
So in this case we have a bombing carried out by
a 2nd generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose
father was admitted to the country for political
reasons because he was an active member of the
opposition to the Libyan government, which our
government sought to encourage, in the context of
Libya having recently been effectively destroyed and
consigned to brutally murderous, bloody chaos by
aggressive UK military action.
And yet for Cockburn and for most of the media
and political establishments, it's seemingly vital
to pretend that it's nothing to do with either
"invade the world" or "invite the world".
It now seems this was a bombing carried out by a 2nd
generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose father was
admitted to the country for political reasons
because he was an active member of the opposition to
the Libyan government, which our government sought
to encourage, in the context of Libya having
recently been effectively destroyed and consigned to
brutally murderous, bloody chaos by aggressive UK
military action.
Here's the BBC on the tangled web
of foreign conflicts our government has enmeshed us
in in Libya, by allowing immigration from a country
and regime changing its government by aggressive
military force:
There is a stark similarity here with the recent
Orlando nightclub shooting. In that case the
attacker was likewise a second generation immigrant
muslim from a country (in that case Afghanistan) the
US government has destroyed by aggressive military
action, whose parents were admitted to the country
because his father was part of the opposition to a
government the US regime wanted changed. Mateen made
online posts calling for revenge on the US for what
it had done to ME countries and even called the
police in the midst of his shootings to declare it
was an act of retaliation for US killings, and yet
those with an interest in obfuscation have looked
high and low for other motivations to obscure the
obvious one.
Invade the world and invite the world. It really
is as simple as that. Our governments interfere
murderously in other countries whilst importing
foreigners from those same countries and related
ones, and then act all horrified when it turns out
they have imported those wars along with the people.
@The Anti-Gnostic
So how come these attacks only happen in proudly
tolerant, liberal countries at venues like teen
concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock
concert halls? I'd venture to say the victims were
probably 90+% opposed to Middle Eastern wars or
discrimination against Muslims.
Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the
strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf
between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards
some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will
not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal,
shutting mosques and – somehow – exiling their own
third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not
being practical, it stands counter to our values, to
whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming
majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.
Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi
Germany, France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not
going to be intimidated by such measures. If
anything, they will strengthen our resolve.
These people are also not part of a centralised
campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors
What we need is more immigration so that Muslims
feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any
power in any society these attacks will continue
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a
second generation immigrant muslim from a country
(in that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan
was destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete dump; there's
just never been anything to destroy. Not within
living memory, anyway.
Beyond the question of Islam, the people from Muslim
nations are for the most part lousy human specimens,
Islam or not. Does Islam put them into garish track
suits? Is Islam commanding them to grift on welfare
and other public services? Is it Islam that has them
sex grooming young white girls?
Or is this just the behavior one would expect
from an invading army that faces no resistance?
Indeed, not only are they not resisted, they are
feted (but never vetted). They are given MORE RIGHTS
by law than the native population. They are
encouraged to remain tribal.
In other words, they see their host nations as
weak, foolish, cowardly places simply asking to be
exploited to the max. For one Mohammed maybe it's
welfare fraud. For another it's hanging about in
public spaces, threatening the native population.
For another, it's bullying the white kids at school.
For another, it's strapping on a bomb. These are all
the same things, just at different places on a
continuum.
And since they are nearly all low IQ with little
future time orientation, they will never turn into
the doctors and layers and computer programmers of
Liberal fantasy.
Sure, it's pretty convenient that Islam is
morally OK with any and all of this behavior. But
the bottom line is that Europe is importing vast
numbers of degenerate human specimens that will
never amount to a thing and will be a problem in
perpetuity. That is, until they take over and kill
or enslave the remaining whites. Then hey, no more
problem!
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
The real reason is the politically correct genocidal
racism and racist colonialism that brought this
bomber and his fellow invaders to the West in the
first place. Those forces spend a hell of a a lot
more money and effort in exterminating the West and
its peoples than Wahhabism does promoting Sunni
extremism. Stop cucking around the real issue,
violent Muslim terrorism and crime in the West is a
by-product of white-hating racism so intense and
genocidal that its perpetrators will import,
embrace, and support Muslims and Muslim terrorists.
Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the
strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf
between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards
some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will
not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal,
shutting mosques and - somehow - exiling their own
third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not
being practical, it stands counter to our values, to
whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming
majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.
Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi Germany,
France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not going to
be intimidated by such measures. If anything, they
will strengthen our resolve.
These people are also not part of a centralised
campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors
What we need is more immigration so that Muslims
feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any
power in any society these attacks will continue
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester,
people rightly warn against blaming the entire
Muslim community in Britain and the world.
Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out
such atrocities is to provoke the communal
punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a
portion of them who will then become open to
recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran
of being the source of most terrorism in the
Middle East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster
way have been rather put off Iran due to them
supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to
their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used
them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many
others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was
in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians
.
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
@Randal
Because those are the easy targets that create the
most impact.
Of course they don't "mostly happen at venues like
teen concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs,
rock concert halls", those are just the ones that
make the big news splashes.
Nor do they "only happen in proudly tolerant,
liberal countries": they mostly happen in the
countries destabilised by US sphere military action.
The vast, vast majority of all islamist terrorism
happens in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and
not "in proudly tolerant, liberal countries" at all.
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Very good posts. Also, as I pointed out in another
thread, the security services have two different
levels of prioritization when it comes to elites vs
proles.
Note that this guy was reported to the police by his
own family, acquaintances and security agencies knew
he had traveled to Daesh-controlled territory in
Libya:
"Two people who knew Salman Abedi are said to have
called the police counter-terrorism hotline five
years ago to raise concerns that he thought 'being a
suicide bomber was OK'.
And a senior US intelligence official has claimed
that members of his own family had warned police
that he was 'dangerous' It is understood that Abedi
was 'known' to the Security Services through his
associations to those linked to terrorism in
Manchester's Libyan community According to NBC, a
senior US intelligence official said Abedi's family
had warned police that he was 'dangerous'. He was
identified after the attack by his bankcard and had
used a 'big and sophisticated bomb' using materials
not widely available in Britain."
But when a guy was reported last month by the Muslim
community, they picked up on it right away - well,
guess what the target was:
"A suspected terrorist attack was foiled after armed
police arrested a man who is alleged to have been
found carrying knives near the Houses of Parliament.
The Guardian understands the operation was triggered
following a tip-off to police by a member of
Britain's Muslim community who was concerned about
the man's behaviour."
Let us not leave out the good offices of the DNC,
from where Hillary and Obama murdered millions
collectively. The butcher's bill is still piling up
in Syria, Iraq and especially, Libya. Bomb churches,
they might get bombed back. And bomb a Synagogue?
Not smart unless you want your entire crew invited
to a seance with the Mossad. Wall Street and oil
companies? Too secure, public venues are the
easiest. But we get your point, Anti, you want
Republicans, Jews and Christians and money to die,
that will make you happy. Too bad for you, everyday
gays and women are suffering the most anywhere you
have the Muslims in all the Euro-flophouses..
Feminists, gays and Liberals in general are the
first to the beheading line when the Caliphate is
installed.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Though in this particular case I doubt they had much
to go on with just a report that a teenager was
spouting off about suicide bombing - that must be
pretty commonplace.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster
way have been rather put off Iran due to them
supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons
to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which
used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and
leave many others without arms legs or testicles.
McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it
was the Iranians .
Then the likes of McMaster need to grow up a bit and
recognise that going to war doesn't just mean that
Americans get to kill other people without anyone
fighting back.
Iran was being menaced and harmed by the US long
before - decades before - the US chose to invade its
neighbour whilst giving clear signals that if its
occupation went well then Iran would be next. A
grownup would understand that just as the US killed
all the Iraqis it felt were necessary to the success
of its policy, so Iran in turn helped kill all the
Americans it felt were necessary to prevent that
success and prevent the likely subsequent attack on
Iran.
Hardball cuts both ways and big boys take their
lumps and move on, when (as with the US and Iran)
there is nothing the US can gain by coming back for
another round and vast opportunities for yet
another, worse, disaster.
And, of course, the Iranians weren't the ones
supplying the sunni jihadists in Iraq, who killed
more than their share of US troops, with money to
buy weapons, for that McMaster would need to look
closer to home - at the very same foreign interests
currently trying to manufacture another
confrontation of Iran.
Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes
the reckoning.
Unlikely, since those who would gain from a
confrontation between the US and Iran live in Riyadh
and Tel Aviv, and in plush offices in Washington,
not in the real America. Most likely the US regime
will back away from a full confrontation when it
comes down to it, as they have on every previous
occasion since they were rightly turfed out of Iran
with their tails between their legs in 1979.
And while those people do have the clout to
manufacture consent for a war with Iran as they did
with Iraq, they obviously (and rightly) fear the
consequences for themselves when it all goes bad.
And if they don't back away from it then the
consequences will be every bit as costly, and more,
as the invasion and occupation of Iraq proved for
the region and for the US and for American soldiers,
and this time those responsible for it will likely
face a lot more than general political
embarrassment.
The ultimate inspiration for such people is
Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive
type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose
ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis
Absolutely right. And we just swindled them for out
of $110 billion to prop up our war industries so
these "sand#@*&#$s" can go and do the dirty job for
our masters in Tel-Aviv and their representatives in
Washington.
Are we really "friends" with a regime that is only
different from N. Korea because of its oil?
Even the Islam they're propagating is exactly what
The Prophet Muhammad fought against, until they lost
and had to convert. Its Islam, is a cult that
follows strict Bedouin traditions, that are typical
Semitic. Women and others who rank low in the tribe
are considered less human. Orthodox Judaism, and
their Bedouin half brothers have had this law of no
rights to the above mentioned since time immemorial.
Jewish women are forbidden to touch or read the
Torah. This is a religious law. If they do it now
its only because of progress.
So Arabs who have adopted Wahhabism (they have lots
of money to spend) are trying to infuse their
culture as part of Islam. Which it is not
Good luck to those who will receive the brunt of our
mighty bombs thru the Wahhabis
Young men, and occasionally women, from Muslim
cultures are particularly prone to turn to a very
nasty form of murder suicide when things go wrong in
their lives, or they become depressed.
They tend
to externalize their own unhappiness and blame
others. Often the unhappiness is related to sexual
frustration and their inability to form satisfying
relationships.
Probably this killer found Ariana Grande sexually
desirable, but unobtainable.
Within their cultures there are plenty of other
equally embittered individuals willing to encourage
and facilitate them and give them material support.
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
But it's saying the guy's family called him out to
the police. And that he was known to security
services based on ties to terrorist sympathizers in
the Libyan community in Manchester. Furthermore, the
article mentions that they knew he went to Libya and
what part of Libya - what the hell??!!
Furthermore, at this point - if you have teenager
talking smack about suicide bombing - take it
seriously.
@Randal
I'm not sure it's feasible to take seriously every
report of a teenage immigrant (1st or 2nd gen) lad
making big talk about suicide bombing or whatever.
There are probably thousands of them, most of them
just hormoned up boys making themselves feel big or
expressing their inadequately controlled emotions.
In this case it was complicated by the fact that his
family connections were to "our" terrorists in Libya
and Syria. On the one hand that might suggest you
should take it more seriously (he clearly had access
to dodgy contacts and materials the average teenage
wannabee doesn't have), but apart from whatever
connections his family undoubtedly had in the UK
security forces themselves, how would they be sure
he was talking about blowing up people here and not
blowing up people our government likes to see blown
up in Libya or Syria?
The latter, of course, is an area we will never see
honestly reported.
I think this lady has found the solution to stop
these guys:
"'Much needs to be done to eradicate this evil. 'But
there is one simple step which we can take now: we
must bring back the death penalty.'"
So long as the Afghan government is aligned
with India, as it now is, Pakistan must support
the Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option
for an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must
have for strategic depth vis-a-vis India.
Remember, India is Pakistan's number one
strategic threat. A pro-India Afghanistan
threatens Pakistan with a two-front war, which is
intolerable. So Pakistan is tied to the Taliban
whether it wants to be or not (my guess is not).
Makes perfect sense.
This is literally stupid, and I have no doubt
you know better. You imply that in this context
actions have no consequences, but in the real
world of course they do.
We can influence those things, but we have no
control, and no guarantee. Keeping them out is fully
under our control, and is guaranteed to work.
This is true only up to a point
It's far truer and more reliable than treating
Muslims nicely.
Actions have consequences.
Yep; open borders leaves us vulnerable to foreign
terrorism.
Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim
sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked
Right/'Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of
you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both
groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the
most part.
This is such an ignorant statement that it
almost defies belief. It is the type of statement
that, were I from a Muslim nation, would almost
make me think that the terrorists were not
completely unjustified.
It's beyond your ken that when people talk of the
destruction of Afghanistan, some other people point
out that there wasn't far to fall?
Keep it to talk of dead Afghans, that works a lot
better.
So long as the Afghan government is aligned with
India, as it now is, Pakistan must support the
Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option for
an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must have
for strategic depth vis-a-vis India. Remember,
India is Pakistan's number one strategic threat.
A pro-India Afghanistan threatens Pakistan with a
two-front war, which is intolerable. So Pakistan
is tied to the Taliban whether it wants to be or
not (my guess is not).
Afghanistan is a pawn in the Pakistan-India
conflict, just as Syria is caught up in a
Arab-Persian quarrel that started at the dawn of
recorded history. All this reduction to the variant
of Islam promoted by the Saudis Cockburn does leaves
you none the wiser.
The irony is that the places that terrorists
targeted were the very places that would give the
most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still
would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that
suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an
even higher margin than the last election. I suppose
these people have a death wish.
@Svigor
Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim
sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked
Right/'Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of
you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both
groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the
most part.
Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering
fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they
decided to declare a "pagan" (kaffirun) in order to
legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering
them LONG before the West even considered bothering
to colonize the Arabs.
The Wahhabi originated in
the one part of Arabia that the Prophet (SAAW)
refused to bless – the Najd. He stated that that was
the place where fitnah (disorder, chaos) came from.
The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular
among the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This
practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were
heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made
robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a
*virtue*
instead of brigandage. The British
put the Sauds in charge of the Arabian peninsula,
now known as Saudi Arabia.
The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they
considered pagan – Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia – it
didn't matter. Unless you believed in their
literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you
were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost
entirely on outward conformity from what I have
seen. While other Muslims are discussing the
attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi
women to "follow the stronger evidence" and cover
their *feet.* Seriously. For real.
Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and
notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for
women to pray, often only accessible by passing
through the area outside where the dumpsters are,
and note that the women's restroom many be filthier
than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident.
Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor
heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who
accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman –
in public – and acknowledged to all present that she
was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that
happening in Wahhabi land – a woman's voice is
considered part of her awrah or nakedness.
If a religious education program for women even
*exists*
, it will tend to focus on
the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering
one's feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman's
prayer is "better" for her at home – so why are all
of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?
The importance of prayer seems to be limited to
having the exact "correct" position of the hands,
feet, etc. – and saying the "correct" exact words.
Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed
that I should never, ever pray in sadl – with my
arms down – because Imam Malik only did that
"because he had been tortured." When I asked a
Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about
this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that
"whoever says that is a liar." And that they really
need to fear God.
So, while silly westerners are running around and
claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about
colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling
us all what they really want – and the left of the
west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally
insists that the extremists are so backward and
stupid that they don't really mean what they say
because anyone with half a brain would be irate over
*material*
issues, not religious
matters.
You can find the Daesh English language
publication on line. Read it before you continue
blathering endless irrelevancies about
"colonialism."
While I fully concur the views stated here by Mr.
Cockburn on this matter, "western" regimes have a
more direct link to the Manchester terrorist act:
the fact that the destruction of Libya by Obama and
the French, spearheaded in the US by then foreign
secretary Hillary Clinton against the advice of
Gates, the war minister at the time, and contrary to
Obama's instincts was a direct link in the chain
leading to this Libyan's terrorist act. There are
also rumours published elsewhere that this terrorist
underwent training to act as one of the "tame"
rebels working to overthrow the Assad government.
The support for the Cameron government for the Libya
action puts the blood of this event on the hands of
the successor tory May government, in its use of
this blowback event to gain electoral mileage in its
effort to stay in power in Britain.
As indicated,
I concur with inferences of the comment by Randal,
#8 above that western actions, including the
destruction of Libya, played the key role in this
attack.
@The Kid
Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering
fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they
decided to declare a "pagan" (kaffirun) in order to
legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering
them LONG before the West even considered bothering
to colonize the Arabs.
The Wahhabi originated in the one part of Arabia
that the Prophet (SAAW) refused to bless - the Najd.
He stated that that was the place where fitnah
(disorder, chaos) came from.
The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular among
the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This
practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were
heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made
robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a *virtue*
instead of brigandage. The British put the Sauds in
charge of the Arabian peninsula, now known as Saudi
Arabia.
The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they
considered pagan - Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia - it
didn't matter. Unless you believed in their
literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you
were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost
entirely on outward conformity from what I have
seen. While other Muslims are discussing the
attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi
women to "follow the stronger evidence" and cover
their *feet.* Seriously. For real.
Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and
notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for
women to pray, often only accessible by passing
through the area outside where the dumpsters are,
and note that the women's restroom many be filthier
than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident.
Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor
heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who
accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman -
in public - and acknowledged to all present that she
was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that
happening in Wahhabi land - a woman's voice is
considered part of her awrah or nakedness.
If a religious education program for women even
*exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of
wearing a head scarf, and covering one's feet.
Sometimes it will stress how a woman's prayer is
"better" for her at home - so why are all of you
ladies here for Juuma every Friday?
The importance of prayer seems to be limited to
having the exact "correct" position of the hands,
feet, etc. - and saying the "correct" exact words.
Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed
that I should never, ever pray in sadl - with my
arms down - because Imam Malik only did that
"because he had been tortured." When I asked a
Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about
this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that
"whoever says that is a liar." And that they really
need to fear God.
So, while silly westerners are running around and
claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about
colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling
us all what they really want - and the left of the
west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally
insists that the extremists are so backward and
stupid that they don't really mean what they say
because anyone with half a brain would be irate over
*material* issues, not religious matters.
You can find the Daesh English language publication
on line. Read it before you continue blathering
endless irrelevancies about "colonialism."
@Godfree Roberts
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
@aceofspades
The irony is that the places that terrorists
targeted were the very places that would give the
most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still
would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that
suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an
even higher margin than the last election. I suppose
these people have a death wish.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Why do those responsible deliberately miss the
target and have gone on doing so? Because they
all profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war
industry and its various 'communities', the Jews.
the media, you name it, they're all in it for fun
and profit. None of them would have an income if
it all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you
know, peace whatever that is.
They can
manufacture an invasion of Iraq based on
non-existent WMDs as punishment for 911, when
apparently the real culprits were supposed to be
Saudis...
"Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and
rightly consider it abhorrent)"
This is laughable, the term "anti-semitism" was invented in the first place to silence criticism,
this whole surprise about the broadening of the definition to include Israel is nothing.
You know what are other "shut-up" words? Racist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Sexist,
etc that along with "Anti-Semitic" make up the bulk of the Capital Sins of the new Globalist Religion
(of course, made by and for Jews).
I have the right to hate, speak badly and denounce anyone I want. It would be a crime if I
infringed one's rights, which means, physical violence – but then again, physical violence alone
is enough of a crime without motive, so it doesn't discriminate and doesn't need special snowflake
groups and orwellian newspeech laws.
I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to
exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up
after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.
Antisemitism is a logical absurdity. It creates an offense that relies solely on the identity
of the victim for its definition.
This is an anomaly for it can be committed against only one class of human beings, regardless
of their behavior. Thus it differs from prejudice against gender or class.
In actuality, the offense referred to is fully described by the term "racism", for all practical
purposes Although many Jews do not claim to be a "race", by claiming antisemitism they are self-identifying
as such. Singling out a race for special treatment defines racism.
What is being proposed here is a consequence of a greater absurdity – a State that claims special
status for one class of human being and that, like the World-bearing Elephants on a Turtle, is
dependent on another absurdity – a chosen race. From there, it is turtles (absurdities) all the
way down.
The jewish identity is 'eternal innocent victim'.
Therefore any criticism of jews, jewry, or the judaic religion, is antisemitism.
It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman
regime...
Likewise, the present German identity is guilt about two world wars, no chance to make them
understand that the great majority of Germans never wanted any war.
The USA identity is saviours of the world, that all over the world people have quite other
ideas about the USA, they simply are wrong.
Terrorism by Muslims, they must be 'deradicalised', this means make them think that western
atrocities against Muslims are for their own good, or caused by bad Muslims.
As John Maynard Keynes long ago already knew, ideas are the most powerful in the world, even
if they have no relation with reality whatsoever.
CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, yet people all over the world believe that CO2 does great
harm to us, despite the simple fact that climate changed as long as the earth exists, when humans
had little influence, except when they began agriculture.
Its unbelievable.
Makes the term "Örwellian" look weak.
Words that come to mind are " ïnsidious", "sneaky", "fascistic", "devious", ëvil".
Ironically - sadly ? - this "new" antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional
antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural
group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted
to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.
International Campaign Is Criminalizing Criticism of Israel as 'Antisemitism'
Yes, this is certainly true as a matter of observable fact and personal experience, but this
is merely one aspect of a much broader societal trend, exploited in this particular case by the
supporters of Israel.
It is not the fact that the enemies of liberty are falsely conflating criticism of Israel with
antisemitism that is the problem, but the fact that they seek to define antisemitism as inherently
evil and illegitimate, to ban the expression of any opinions classed as antisemitism from the
public sphere, and wherever possible to criminalise it. The former would not be a problem were
it not for the latter.
Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of "Anti-Racism" Movement
In the never-ending war on liberty waged by the powerful, for whom the freedom of ordinary folk
to say and do things that annoy or offend them, or that threaten their position, is an eternal
impertinence, the most vital front is freedom of speech. To the extent that freedom of speech
is restricted, to that same extent is democracy negated. That front is also currently the most
active in the war against liberty, and the attempt to separate and suppress "hate speech" is the
schwerpunkt of the efforts by the enemies of liberty.
Those who call people or their opinions racist or anti-Semite or homophobic or islamophobic
or whatever, and thereby seek to define their opinions as illegitimate per se, are the most dangerous
enemies of liberty in the societies of the modern US sphere.
The apposition of 'antisemitism' to any 'phobias' has a long history (it was just the list
of phobias that grew overtime):
"The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism-or Ligue Internationale Contre le
Racisme et l'Antisémitisme (LICRA) in French-was established in 1927, and is opposed to intolerance,
xenophobia and exclusion.
In 1927, French journalist Bernard Lecache created "The League Against Pogroms", and launched
a media campaign in support of Sholom Schwartzbard who assassinated Symon Petliura on 25 May 1926
in the Latin Quarter of Paris. Schwartzbard viewed Petliura as responsible for numerous pogroms
in Ukraine. After Schwartzbard's acquittal, the league evolved into LICA (Ligue internationale
contre l'antisémitisme-or international league against anti-semitism). Schwartzbard was a prominent
activist in this organization
The LICRA keeps fighting neonazism and Holocaust denial. This was demonstrated when it supported
the Klarsfeld couple (Serge and Beate Klarsfeld), and during Klaus Barbie's trial in 1987.
In the last few years, LICRA intensified its international actions by opening sections abroad,
in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Luxembourg, in Germany, in Portugal, in Quebec and more recently
in Congo Brazzaville and in Austria.
Since 1999, with the arrival of president Patrick Gaubert, LICRA has extended its area of action.
It now addresses social issues such as work discrimination, citizenship, and disadvantaged youth".
"Likewise, anti-Semitism is a universally accepted notion, but goy-hatred is not.
These are just two amongst many other such 'one-way mental blocks" Friends, this is not a coincidence.
This is a *system* designed to make us all stupid and gullible."
This is how Jews always get themselves into trouble. They have no "off" switch on advantage-seeking.
They can't not press an advantage. Someone needs to tell them that bullying people into assent
isn't the same as making them forget – people do tend to remember this stuff.
The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of "antisemitism"[1] to include criticism
of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.
And what if, as has been the norm at a great many points in history, humanity decides to redefine
"anti-semitism" as "good"?
Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and
rightly consider it abhorrent)
Not if Jews get their way, apparently. I am reminded of a (very memorable) book title: Jews and the State: the Fatal Embrace.
Second, Sharansky declared that it's antisemitic to apply a "double standard" to Israel
- in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However,
if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other
similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.
If it's bigotry to apply double standards (it's a double standard to limit the conversation
to anti-semitism, by the way), then Jews have been the world's greatest bigots beyond living memory. This was a long piece, I hope I have time to read it all closely at some point.
Criticizing Israel or Jewish organizations is a hate crime because, you see, Israel and Jews
acting collectively have never and can never do anything wrong.
This follows from those purported
standards of proof being textbook examples of logical fallacies and thinly veiled hate crimes
themselves, requiring us to look elsewhere for the implicit justification. Jewish martyrology
and absolute goodness, therefore, must become the one, supreme ontological truth before which
all peoples, nation states, and religions must genuflect. Maybe Chris Smith has the courage to
introduce a new preamble to the Constitution enshrining this as the ultimate law of the land.
"Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and
rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition
with an Israel-centric definition."
I pretty much wrote this piece off as soon as I read the above quote. Any non-Jew, especially
white Christians in America and Europe, who doesn't at least have a prejudiced or bigoted view
of Jewish organizations or power is an idiot. If Jews want less antisemitism, then they need to
police their own for signs of hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption towards others, but I
doubt that will happen, since the hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption seem organic to Jews
in general.
Maybe if "activists" like Ms. Weir would concentrate on taking on Jewish power of all kinds,
then the West could reform and Israel would be forced to reform, go extinct, or whatever. As it
is, they just play a shell game with "Palestinian rights," while going full SJW on the rest of
us. I don't give a damn about Israel, neocon Jews, Palestinians or leftist Jews. I care about
my people and my country, and Jews of all political stripes are far more of a threat to both than
Palestinians or whatever Muslims who are allowed to infiltrate will ever be.
I state everything above understanding full well that Palestinians are the victims of Jewish
power and the world-wide Jewish community. Unfortunately, outside of the Israel issue, most Palestinians
and Muslims side with the multicult, anti-Western, heavily Jewish (phony) left. In the end, I
can't see how Jews will be able to play all the different groups against each other for their
own benefit, and I don't care. I just want to be rid of Jewish influence and Jewish power.
Jews always forget basic Newton laws:
"For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction".
In a long run you can not silence people, it will backfire.
Feb 24, 2017 Israeli Spying in the US: A Brief History
NOTE: This video was produced for BoilingFrogsPost com on April 11, 2012. It is being made
available in its entirety here for the first time.
The knowledge that Israeli-connected companies and intelligence agents have been involved in
detailed and elaborate spying operations in the US is of course nothing new. The phenomenon has
been painstakingly documented over the years by numerous journalists and sources. Indeed, the
documented cases of Israeli spying on their supposed ally - the self-same American government
that is supplying it with $3 billion in grants each year - are nearly too numerous to document.
I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially
mandatory voting: every person casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill
out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a vote for "I'll go with the majority's
decision."
The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this process: everyone
is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.
The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the
people who vote by proxy. It's Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from
the party that claims to support mandatory voting!
The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will
very much favored Trump over Clinton.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all
50 states
That's the theory. The reality is more like:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all
15 battleground states
or better still:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all
5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that have been truly competitive over the last five presidential
elections
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from
determining the vote. Without the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would
only have to cater to the major population centers and could safely ignore "flyover country",
as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from
determining the vote. Without the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would
only have to cater to the major population centers and could safely ignore "flyover country",
as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
"... No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup. ..."
"... Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, ..."
"... So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters. ..."
"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble."
The witches in Macbeth.
President Trump's administration is now at a high boil as he faces intense heat from all sides.
The Republican Party has backed away from their embattled president. US intelligence agencies are
baying for his blood. The US media plays the role of the witches in 'Macbeth' as it plots against
Trump.
One increasingly hears whispers about impeachment or the wonderful 1964 film about a military
coup in Washington, 'Seven Days in May.'
As in Shakespeare's King Lear, Trump stands almost alone on a blasted heath, howling that he has
been betrayed. The world watches on in dismay and shock.
One thing is clear: the US presidency has become too powerful when far-fetched talk of possibly
Russian involvement in Trump's campaign could send world financial markets into a crash dive. And
when Trump's ill informed, off the cuff remarks can endanger the fragile global balance of power.
Trump has made this huge mess and must now live with it. Yes, he is being treated unfairly by
appointment of a special prosecutor when the titanic sleaze of the Clintons was never investigated.
But that's what happens when you are widely detested. No mercy for Trump, a man without any mercy
for others.
Trump is not a Manchurian candidate put into office by Moscow though his bungling aides and iffy
financial deals often made it appear so. His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn
was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Who else paid off Flynn? Disgraceful.
But what about all the politicians and officials who took and take money from the Saudis and Gulf
emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the ardent advocate of Greater Israel? What about political payoffs
to the flat-earth Republicans who now act as Israel's amen chorus in Washington?
The growing scandals that are engulfing Trump's presidency seem likely to delay if not defeat
the president's laudatory proposals to lower taxes, prune the bureaucracy, clean up intelligence,
end America's foreign wars, and impose some sort of peace in the Mideast.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers,
cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals
for a living.
No wonder Trump stands almost alone, like Rome's Horatio at the Bridge. One increasingly hears
in Washington 'what Trump needs is a little war.'
That would quickly wrong-foot his critics and force the neocon media – Washington Post, Wall Street
Journal, New York Times, and CNN – to back him. We already saw this happen when Trump fired salvos
of cruise missiles at Syria. It would also provide welcome distraction from the investigations of
Trump that are beginning.
Trump has appeared to be pawing the ground in a desire to attack naughty North Korea or Syria,
and maybe even Yemen, Somalia or Sudan. A war against any of these small nations would allow the
president to don military gear and beat his chest – as did the dunce George W. Bush. Bomb the usual
Arabs!
' As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents. more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their hart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Shee-it! I thought Dubya accomplished this . Apparently the M'urkan public is being defiant
and really wants to flaunt it's ignorance. Well, howdee! we got us a real contest goin' on now.
Trump is obviously the proverbial monkey with a machine-gun. My inner survival instincts are starting
to kick in. Does anyone see this this presidency as leveling out and trying to conduct business
like you know as it has been in the last 200 years?
This is too insane. I honestly think that some kind of the fix is in. How? Don't know.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is
no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Eric wrote: His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder.
Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Hunsdon said: The notorious Islamophobe, in pay of the Next Sultan? Too delicious.
Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest
about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates
got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside
of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, and the Electoral College was put into place
precisely to keep a big state or a couple of big states from dominating the election of a President.
Even in the 1780′s, many Americans didn't want NY to have the power to pick a President on their
own.
So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for
most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated
election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy
rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want
to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters.
Thus, its not that Trust is simply the most detested. He's not. At worst, the last election
said he's the second most detested person in the country. But, the "right" people all detest him.
So, a small minority of government insiders and the members of the media want to run him out of
town.
There's things he's done since he's been elected that I don't like. I don't like the way that
saying he was against regime change and more wars in the middle east has turned out to be a massive
lie. But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
If not, then CA and NY and the Deep State and the Media millionaires will run this country
and everyone will know that elections don't matter.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace
until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Few ruling classes had an opportunity to build an idyllical structure of society and governance
over the last four centuries as the two ruling US classes had.
Instead, they created numerous cliquish cliques and with political powers of each clique diminishing
from the two top classes down to the last class: prisoners, indigenes, white and black trash.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
07/04/2017
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today
(4/6/17) after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government
targets:
"It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the
advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow
the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to
more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other
terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.
"This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration
of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without
waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical
poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical
attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his
prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However,
because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be
possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much
harder."
07/04/2017 Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today (4/6/17) after
the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:
"It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated
our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted
and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists,
and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.
"This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences
of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene
of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on
innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International
Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible.
And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder."
Citizens United worsened the crisis of dark money influencing our country. We need to
get corporate money and lobbyists out of politics.
I've decided to stop accepting PAC/lobbyist $$. Bottom line: we can't allow our future to
be driven and shaped by special interests.
It always amazes me so few zamericans seem to even discuss these basic themes; with such a
completely corrupt political system, there is little chance even a solid, well meaning president
could accomplish much.
In fact , such corrupt system hardly produces any good statesmen to begin with
She, and Whitney, include the principals (primary sources) and their witness and actions:
Julian Assange -recipient of Democratic emails. Gavin MacFadyen -alleged recipient of Seth Rich's emails according to law enforcement
source. Craig Murray -recipient of Democratic emails in a DC park.
Now we have another man claiming to be a principal, Kim Dotcom. Says he was a friend of Seth's and worked on the leak. He has
lived in New Zealand since 2010, I believe. The main principal, Julian Assange, just spoke out again on Seth Rich, seemingly in
response to Kim, that informants may have spoken to others, but they don't out leakers.
Anyway, as always, keep your eye on the principals.
.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his
testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from
the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his
former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given
"complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their
conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of
the three agencies and me."
Sounds a bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission, with both
being presented with the results of what their investigation would uncover
prior to any investigation taking place.
US
Nuclear Weapon Upgrade Program:
"CBO estimates that nuclear forces will
cost $348 billion
between FY 2015 and FY 2024. Three independent estimates put the expected
total cost over the next 30 years at as much as $1 trillion."
[aircarft carrier] The Gerald R. Ford, $12.8 billion + $4.7 billion R&D (estimated). The Navy
wants ten.
Columbia
, the Navy's upcoming new nukey-boomer, formerly ORP, Ohio Replacement Program. "The
total lifecycle cost of the entire class is estimated at $347 billion.": Wikipedia
..."
Trump's
proposed increase in US military spending is almost as big as Russia's entire defense
budget."
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980′s, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion ..whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when
it enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless.
The purpose of this sort of technology is to make lots and lots of
money for the right people. Whether it works or not is entirely
irrelevant.
@Sunbeam
One thing I'm waiting to see is when non-American culture producers start
to beat Americans.
Bollywood is gigantic. And has a huge presence in parts of Asia.
There used to be Hong Kong Cinema. Not sure what happened to it.
Successful, but not on the scale of Star Wars or The Fast And The Furious
or something.
Brazilian T&A soap operas are spreading around the world.
K-Pop is doing the same.
Japanese Anime and Manga, maybe the odd pop star, is worldwide now as
well.
But one day we are going to see that the past year's biggest movie
worldwide was made in Bollywood or China.
I'm a nationalist, but I will absolutely cheer as the first nail goes in
Hollywood's coffin.
As someone who has travelled to the US and China (Beijing), I was
astounded by how advanced China's infrastructure was to that of the US.
Subways, freight trains, highways, airports, bridges you name it. The
investment is still on going and only really been going on for 25 or so
years. I had the feeling in the US things were being neglected. Also
China is almost unbelievably safe walking the streets. Everybody behaved
like mature adults. No forty year olds who dressed like teenagers, in
fact most of the teenagers dressed like forty year olds should.
Infrastructure is critical to a modern society, the military merely
protects it. Economy is the source of viable military spending, not the
other way around.
This marvelous revelation from Wikipedia: "In July 2016, the U.S.
Air Force stated they would not release the estimated cost for the
B-21 contract with Northrop Grumman. The Air Force argued releasing
the cost would reveal too much information about the classified
project to potential adversaries." As, for example, taxpayers.
"The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when it
enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless."
It will still be good for terrorizing ... sorry ... for policing rogue
states like N. Korea, Serbia, Yemen, and Syria.
"... the NSA has to prioritize its efforts: shall they use their supercomputers, translators, analysts,
senior officers, etc. to spy after, say, the girlfriend of a senior Chinese diplomat or spy after you?
..."
"... Using sophisticated ComSec technologies only draws unwanted attention to you ..."
"... My advice is simple: never use any form of encryption while at work ..."
"... .If ComSec is important for you, you really ought to ditch your Windows or Mac/Apple machines.
They – like anything Google, are basically a subsidiary of the NSA. ..."
"... The real cost of security will always be convenience : the painful reality is that good security
is always inconvenient. ..."
"... The key here is "is it worth it?" and that is a personal decision of yours to take. Also, you
will also need to factor in the costs of not using high-tech ..."
"... when the General Petraeus sex scandal made news, it was revealed that he communicated with
is lover using this method. Since they are both career CIA officers, I guess it works. ..."
"... It's been discussed that the CIA and Deep State promoted Abstract Art as ideological weapon
during the Cold War. When will people discuss the fact that Homomania is now the #1 ideological weapon
of Globo-Imperialism in the Gold War. ..."
"... And the content of your messages is almost irrelevant. GCHQ doesn't monitor content of UK residents
without explicit authority. It hardly needs to. It can monitor who you call, when, how often, how long
are the calls, your locations, the receiver's locations, your other contacts, their other contacts.
With that much information, the content is almost irrelevant. ..."
"... Re: Peter Principle. Your discussion of the open-source community level of quality made me
wonder if there is a mirror image of the Peter Principle, say, the Paul Principle? ..."
"... Does anyone trust Android phones? I was sad that the Ubuntu phone failed. ..."
Second, both spying and ComSec are cost-driven . Yes, even the NSA has a limited (if huge) budget.
And yes, even the NSA has to prioritize its efforts: shall they use their supercomputers, translators,
analysts, senior officers, etc. to spy after, say, the girlfriend of a senior Chinese diplomat or
spy after you?
It is true that all our communications are intercepted and recorded. This is especially true of
the 'metadata' (who contacted whom and when and how and how often), but it is also true of our more
or less 'secure' communications, be they protected by a very weak encryption algorithm or a military-grade
encryption system. Once that data is stored, the NSA has to parse it (mostly looking at the metadata)
and take a decision as to how much resources it is willing to allocate to your specific case. No
offense intended, but if you are a small pot grower with a history of political activism who emigrated
to the USA form, say, Turkey 10 years ago and if you are emailing your friends in Antalya, the NSA
would need to decrypt your email. That would take them less than 1 milisecond, but somebody needs
to authorize it.
Then they would have to get a machine translation from Turkish into English which will be hopefully
good enough (I am quite sure that the few Turkish-language translators they have will not be allocated
to you, sorry, you are just not that important). Then some analyst must read that text and decide
to pass it on to his boss for follow-up. If the analyst finds your email boring, he will simply send
it all into a virtual trash bin. Conclusions: For the bad guys to spy after you must be worth their
time as expressed in dollars and cents, including opportunity costs (time spend *not* going after
somebody more important) It is exceedingly unlikely that the NSA will put their best and brightest
on your case so don't assume they will.
... ... ...
Using sophisticated ComSec technologies only draws unwanted attention to you . This one
was very true and is still partially true. But the trend is in the right direction. What this argument
says is that in a culture where most people use postcards to communicate using a letter in a sealed
envelope makes you look suspicious. Okay, true, but only to the extend that few people are using
envelopes. What has changed in the past, say, 20-30 years is that nowadays everybody is expecting
some degree of security and protection. For example, many of you might remember that in the past,
most Internet addresses began with HTTP whereas now they mostly begin with
HTTPS: that "s" at the end stands for
"secure" . Even very mainstream applications like Skype or Whatsapp use a very similar technology
to the one justifying the "s" at the end of HTTPS. We now live in a world were the number of users
of sealed envelopes is growing where the usage of postcards is in free fall. Still, it IS true that
in some instances the use of a top-of-the-line encryption scheme will draw somebody's attention to
you.
... ... ...
My advice is simple: never use any form of encryption while at work or on the clock. ...Just
keep a reasonably low profile. For public consumption, I also recommend using Google's Gmail. Not
only does it work very well, but using Gmail makes you look "legit" in the eyes of the idiots. So
why not use it?
...The US government has many ways to spy on you. You can use the most advanced encryption schemes,
but if your computer is running Windows you are *begging* for a backdoor and, in fact, you probably
already have many of them in your machine. But even if your operating system is really secure like,
say OpenBSD or SEL-Debian, the NSA can spy on you ,,,
...If ComSec is important for you, you really ought to ditch your Windows or Mac/Apple machines.
They – like anything Google, are basically a subsidiary of the NSA.
If you use remote servers to provide you with "
software as a service
" try to use those who have a stake in being peer-reviewed and who only use open source technologies
(Silent Circle's Silent Phone is an example). There are public interest and "watchdog" type of organizations
out there who will help you make the right choices, such as the
Electronic Freedom Foundation .
... ... ...
The real cost of security will always be convenience : the painful reality is that good security
is always inconvenient. In theory, security does not need to harm convenience, but in reality
it always, always does. For example, to become more or less proficient in ComSec you need to educate
yourself, that takes time and energy. Using a key to enter a home takes more time than to open an
unlocked door. A retinal scan takes even more time (and costs a lot more). You might always spend
a great deal of time trying to convince your friends to adopt your practices, but they will reject
your advice for many more or less valid reasons. The key here is "is it worth it?" and that is
a personal decision of yours to take. Also, you will also need to factor in the costs of not using
high-tech.
I have read about a simpler method. Open a web mail account with yahoo or whoever and share
the username/password. Then compose a message and save the draft. Your partner later opens the
draft and adds a response, saves draft, and so on. No e-mail is ever sent, so there is nothing
to intercept.
This sounded crafty but I was unsure if it was secure and have no need anyway, but when
the General Petraeus sex scandal made news, it was revealed that he communicated with is lover
using this method. Since they are both career CIA officers, I guess it works.
Medieval methods work best. Surround a large building with guards. In the middle of the large
internal space place a circle of (inspected) chairs. Meet in a huddle.
For the poor, nothing beats a walk in the countryside, even a park.
It's been discussed that the CIA and Deep State promoted Abstract Art as ideological weapon
during the Cold War. When will people discuss the fact that Homomania is now the #1 ideological
weapon of Globo-Imperialism in the Gold War.
And the content of your messages is almost irrelevant. GCHQ doesn't monitor content of
UK residents without explicit authority. It hardly needs to. It can monitor who you call, when,
how often, how long are the calls, your locations, the receiver's locations, your other contacts,
their other contacts. With that much information, the content is almost irrelevant.
Re: Peter Principle. Your discussion of the open-source community level of quality made
me wonder if there is a mirror image of the Peter Principle, say, the Paul Principle?
A great way to keep your cellphone radio-silent is to wrap it in a (2 is better still) metallized
mylar potato chip or Doritos bag. (The more silvery looking, the better, in my experience.)
The cell sites will NOT be able to ask your phone for its ID or give up its location, until
you take it out of the bag, of course.
It's a great way to take a road trip without the NSA knowing EXACTLY where you are at every
point along the way. And generally, you will be able to return your calls when you get home since
there will be a record of the calls at your provider, which will come up (in your message box)
when the phone is re-enabled.
Be aware though, once the phone is taken out of the bag, it will register with the local cell
sites (i.e. your cover will be blown.)
Debian with the ssl bug that quietly existed for years – most likely for spying? That OS? That
"community" effort? Which is basically derived from (Redhat) which is the DOD? Pffrt. Most of
this is nonsense.
The NSA has made people their bitch, in the most obvious ways. In the spirit of security then
and being a dutiful patriotic bitch – keep posting on social media given to you by the "truth
tellers". They are here to help you right? Tell you all the truthiness because they "were" in
the military, and "were" spooks. Keep your iphones close and let your mind do the deep state's
thinking.
As others have pointed out (if not in so many words), 95% of the spying efforts by the NSA
and others are directed at traffic analysis , not analyzing the CONTENT of communications.
Who contacted whom, when, for how long, etc. can tell you a lot about what is going on, and is
very easy and cheap to do on a massive (humanity-wide) scale using existing computer technology.
The Electronic Frontiers Foundation referred to in the Saker's piece illustrates the point:
• They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't
know what you talked about.
• They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the
topic of the call remains a secret.
• They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance
company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
• They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against
gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately
after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
• They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned
Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
In a similar vein, it is said (almost certainly correctly) that Target can spot whether a shopper
is pregnant long before she starts buying obvious baby-related stuff.
I didn't know about the phone apps. They look nice. Does anyone trust Android phones? I
was sad that the Ubuntu phone failed. I'd like smart phones to be more like PCs where new
operating systems can be installed on them. Is "SEL-Debian," Security Enhanced Linux? The NSA
developed that. OpenBSD supposed to be real nice and encrypted. How about systemd? The good thing
about open source is that the code is open but does anyone read it?
"... The exposure of this story takes the mask off the exponents of the Russian conspiracy theory. Their sanity is now in question,
as is their loyalty. ..."
For the past several months, Democrats have based their "Resist 45″ movement on unsubstantiated assertions that the Trump campaign
coordinated with Russian intelligence officials to undermine the 2016 Presidential Election thereby 'stealing' the White House from
Hillary Clinton. Day after day we've all suffered through one anonymously sourced, "shock" story after another from the New York
Times and/or The Washington Post with new allegations of the 'wrongdoing'.
But, new evidence surfacing in the Seth Rich murder investigation may just quash the "Russian hacking" conspiracy theory. According
to a new report from
Fox News , it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to WikiLeaks and not some random Russian cyber
terrorist, as we've all been led to believe.
According to Fox News, though admittedly via yet another anonymous FBI source, Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin
MacFadyen, an American investigative reporter and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time. According to Fox News
sources, federal law enforcement investigators found 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments sent between DNC leaders from January 2015
to May 2016 that Rich shared with WikiLeaks before he was gunned down on July 10, 2016.
The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his
home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated
within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.
"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
Then, on July 22, just 12 days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party
officials conspiring to stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the party's presidential nominee. As we've noted before, the DNC's efforts
to block Sanders resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as DNC chairperson.
Expect the Comey-Russia hysteria to escalate as the Seth Rich matter ripens. The DNC is eyeing the 2018 midterm elections and
hoping that they can keep the focus off their problems (Hillary, Podesta, ad nauseam). How will they snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory yet again? CNN and MSNBC are preparing to levitate over the issues.
@Ivy Expect the Comey-Russia hysteria to escalate as the Seth Rich matter ripens. The DNC is eyeing the 2018 midterm elections
and hoping that they can keep the focus off their problems (Hillary, Podesta, ad nauseam). How will they snatch defeat from the
jaws of victory yet again? CNN and MSNBC are preparing to levitate over the issues.
Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would astonish most
people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
Three days after the Seth Rich murder Comey had the information (IF he didn't already know) gleaned from Rich's laptop that
he had been in correspondence with Wikileaks, yet went along with the canard that the DNC was hacked by the Russians till the
very end. Assange's confirmation that Russians had no connection to the LEAK was also ignored, because they wanted Assange painted
as a criminal.
His murder is very troubling. Nothing was taken so it seems he was targeted. Assassinations taking place in the US should be
of great concern to everyone. This shouldn't be allowed to go down the memory hole. Does the trail lead to Clinton or other domestic
spook groups?
Only scanned the article quickly, but I'm very confident an untold number of political decisions in America are made by political
violence and threats of violence, blackmail, bribery, and so on. There are good people in politics, even in my preternaturally
corrupt area, but they have to be tough as nails, and that can wear you out. We may be closer to Tinpot-istan in our political
culture than Norman Rockwell, but–Chrissake–where are the mainstream media in this Seth Rich case? I'm just a casual reader of
the story, but I'd like to know if this was a political assassination.
I suspect there's as much evidence in the Seth Rich matter as there is in The-Russians-Did-It theory. So let's have congress
drop all other business and "investigate" this Rich matter.
"According to a new report from Fox News, it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to WikiLeaks and
not some random Russian cyber terrorist, as we've all been led to believe."
Does it occur to Durden that there may be SEPARATE WikiLeaks, one allegedly from Rich and one from another source?
@Corvinus "According to a new report from Fox News, it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to
WikiLeaks and not some random Russian cyber terrorist, as we've all been led to believe."
Does it occur to Durden that there may be SEPARATE WikiLeaks, one allegedly from Rich and one from another source?
@SteveRogers42 Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would
astonish most people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
@Alfa158 The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. They did offer a reward for
information on the murder of Seth Rich, which implies, but does not state, that the DNC leaks came from Rich.
The Hillary e-mails could have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur.
Then on top of all that fog, other conflicting information is that the DNC lost control of the e-mails due to Podesta falling
for a phishing probe, even after his IT people warned him not to respond to it.
Yet another journalist claims he was the guy who forwarded the e-mails to Wikileaks and got them from a DNC staffer, but not Rich!
I think I'll go take a nap for about 5 years and you can wake me up after it is all sorted out.
@SteveRogers42 Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would
astonish most people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
@anon Is there a specific combination on DNA of Negroes that carries the "pathological liar" trait?
What is that DNA pattern?
Does it appear only on NEGRO DNA or has its presence been noted on non-Negro DNA?
A majority of Black callers to C Span declare, with gospel certainty, that "Trump is a liar, has been all his life."
Does that mean that Trump carries Negro DNA?
Or that Trump is a Negro?
Or that the code for lying can be present in non-Negroes?
Or that Negroes, being "pathological liars," lie about Trump being a liar?
Is that last statement disproved if it happens that Trump does, indeed, lie?
My but it does get complicated when blanket, prejudiced generalizations are slung about.
I'm not impressed. For quite some time there has been a credible witness to the fact of an insider leaked the DNC mails that
doesn't require going through anonymous FBI sources or climbing over a Rich family in denial:
"I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's
a leak, not a hack; the two are different things" -wikileaks associate and former British foreign service officer Craig Murray
So why would 'tyler durden' toss all of this doubt inducing crap from the faux news channel into the stew of it? It's been
black & white, case closed for quite some time.
@Ronald Thomas West I'm not impressed. For quite some time there has been a credible witness to the fact of an insider leaked
the DNC mails that doesn't require going through anonymous FBI sources or climbing over a Rich family in denial:
"I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's
a leak, not a hack; the two are different things" -wikileaks associate and former British foreign service officer Craig Murray
So why would 'tyler durden' toss all of this doubt inducing crap from the faux news channel into the stew of it? It's been
black & white, case closed for quite some time.
@Corvinus One can have reasonable doubt that Craig Murray "knows" who leaked them since he has self-interest and self-preservation
in mind.
Mr. Murray made this statement--"A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals"
involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign
hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power
to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited,
or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks."
Except if the "Deep State" is playing for keeps and is hell-bent on removing Trump, then they are going to play it close to
the vest in certain matters and wait until they have the absolute goods to nail him to the cross. So it's not as "simple" as Mr.
Murray makes it out to be. Arrests and/or extraditions are most likely made when there is hard-core evidence, which is required
in this case given Trump status and popularity among his base. They have ONE bullet in their chamber and have to get the KILL
SHOT. The CIA has their attack dogs out en masses to smoke out the culprits. If it is revealed that in the two grand juries that
Trump's crew are joined at the hip with the Russians and/or engaged in shenanigans, then Republicans will have to think about
cutting their ties to Trump given the importance of the mid-term elections.
@Ronald Thomas West Clearly you're just way too smart for ordinary folk with common sense; kind of like the IQ 180 that believes
Jesus will return and straighten everything out. Meanwhile, I'll take Murray at his word.
JHC .. we do it/have been doing it (eg) meddling in foreign elections, wars, whacking the occasional candidate since the Spanish-American
War and say "its okay, it's in the national interest."
What's the point with the supposed Russia-US election bashing? Ie, it's okay and national interest legal for the US to meddle
and others not?
May 17, 2017 The Seth Rich Story Changes Once Again
Less than 24 hours after Private Investigator Rod Wheeler claimed that "investigation up to this point shows there was some
degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," the story has changed. Wheeler is now claiming that he had no additional
evidence to suggest that Seth Rich contacted WikiLeaks prior to his murder.
14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency
Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and China
- as well as attacks in the US and South America. There are reports of infections in 99 countries. A string of ransomware attacks
appears to have started in the United Kingdom, Spain and the rest of Europe, before striking Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines
on May 12. According to Kaspersky Laboratory, Russia, Ukraine, India and Taiwan were hit hardest. Mikko Hypponen, chief research
officer at the Helsinki-based cybersecurity company F-Secure, called the attack "the biggest ransomware outbreak in history".
It is not known who exactly was behind it.
@Corvinus "Clearly you're just way too smart for ordinary folk with common sense...:
I'm merely offering my analysis from multiple sources.
"kind of like the IQ 180 that believes Jesus will return and straighten everything out."
Exactly. It is faith. One can question that belief, but you nor I actually know.
"Meanwhile, I'll take Murray at his word."
In order to maintain his narrative, absolutely. But you may be missing key things along the way. We'll see how it all plays
out. The two grand juries being convened on the Trump Administration will be telling.
@Agent76 May 17, 2017 The Seth Rich Story Changes Once Again
Less than 24 hours after Private Investigator Rod Wheeler claimed that "investigation up to this point shows there was some
degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," the story has changed. Wheeler is now claiming that he had no additional
evidence to suggest that Seth Rich contacted WikiLeaks prior to his murder.
@Ram Three days after the Seth Rich murder Comey had the information (IF he didn't already know) gleaned from Rich's laptop
that he had been in correspondence with Wikileaks, yet went along with the canard that the DNC was hacked by the Russians till
the very end. Assange's confirmation that Russians had no connection to the LEAK was also ignored, because they wanted Assange
painted as a criminal.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
@Corvinus One can have reasonable doubt that Craig Murray "knows" who leaked them since he has self-interest and self-preservation
in mind.
Mr. Murray made this statement--"A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals"
involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign
hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power
to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited,
or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks."
Except if the "Deep State" is playing for keeps and is hell-bent on removing Trump, then they are going to play it close to
the vest in certain matters and wait until they have the absolute goods to nail him to the cross. So it's not as "simple" as Mr.
Murray makes it out to be. Arrests and/or extraditions are most likely made when there is hard-core evidence, which is required
in this case given Trump status and popularity among his base. They have ONE bullet in their chamber and have to get the KILL
SHOT. The CIA has their attack dogs out en masses to smoke out the culprits. If it is revealed that in the two grand juries that
Trump's crew are joined at the hip with the Russians and/or engaged in shenanigans, then Republicans will have to think about
cutting their ties to Trump given the importance of the mid-term elections.
@anon Is there a specific combination on DNA of Negroes that carries the "pathological liar" trait?
What is that DNA pattern?
Does it appear only on NEGRO DNA or has its presence been noted on non-Negro DNA?
A majority of Black callers to C Span declare, with gospel certainty, that "Trump is a liar, has been all his life."
Does that mean that Trump carries Negro DNA?
Or that Trump is a Negro?
Or that the code for lying can be present in non-Negroes?
Or that Negroes, being "pathological liars," lie about Trump being a liar?
Is that last statement disproved if it happens that Trump does, indeed, lie?
My but it does get complicated when blanket, prejudiced generalizations are slung about.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
@Alfa158 The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. They did offer a reward for
information on the murder of Seth Rich, which implies, but does not state, that the DNC leaks came from Rich.
The Hillary e-mails could have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur.
Then on top of all that fog, other conflicting information is that the DNC lost control of the e-mails due to Podesta falling
for a phishing probe, even after his IT people warned him not to respond to it.
Yet another journalist claims he was the guy who forwarded the e-mails to Wikileaks and got them from a DNC staffer, but not Rich!
I think I'll go take a nap for about 5 years and you can wake me up after it is all sorted out.
@Corvinus "The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. The Hillary e-mails could
have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur."
Exactly. So Zerohedge is being a White Knight here for Trump. It is possible that Rich could have supplied those documents,
but it is also possible that the Russians was involved. We don't know for sure.
Why doesn't Assange release at least some of the e-mails from Seth Rich to Wikileaks?
According to the standard version of the story, Rich did not email the pilfered DNC data to Wikileaks. Rather, he met in
DC with Craig Murray--a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a personal friend of Julian Assange--and gave him the information
on a flashdrive of some type. Murray then flew back to Britain and gave the drive to Assange in person.
@Don Bass ......We don't know for sure.....
Sure, we do. Wikileaks has stated emphatically and categorically the leaks - and they were leaks, not " hacks", were not sourced
from the Russians.
What also know - for sure - is that the "Russians hacked our elections" psy-op/misdirect was constructed (workshopped) by the
Podesta + David Brookes media matters "team" immediately after the HRC election failure.
@Don Bass ......We don't know for sure.....
Sure, we do. Wikileaks has stated emphatically and categorically the leaks - and they were leaks, not " hacks", were not sourced
from the Russians.
What also know - for sure - is that the "Russians hacked our elections" psy-op/misdirect was constructed (workshopped) by the
Podesta + David Brookes media matters "team" immediately after the HRC election failure.
Well, it must have been the Russians that hacked into the NY Times and published that damning article about Hil and Libya.
It was a rather complete exposé of incompetence and savagery. Note; the New York Times! And where did Trump live? Pretty conclusive;
Trump and the Russians victimizing poor Hil and the voice of liberals in one dastardly hack.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
@Dahlia There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up...
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway...
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story... Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Gavin MacFadyen seems to have had a relationship with Craig Murray, and both had/have a relationship with Julian Assange. Seth
Rich being in contact with Gavin MacFadyen greatly lends credibility to Craig Murray's account.
(Here, both are mentioned together in the book "Ghost Plane: The True Story Story of the CIA Torture Program"
https://books.google.com/books?id=NLzB7YXDHNUC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=gavin+macfadyen+craig+murray+cia&source=bl&ots=KKy1_V2atM&sig=1CYGRZjnOxmcRIGk9RNx1iQhWcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigk-7br_3TAhXo7oMKHTOrCT0Q6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=gavin%20macfadyen%20craig%20murray%20cia&f=false)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
In reference to the leak of the DNC emails, Murray noted that "Julian Assange took very close interest in the death of Seth
Rich, the Democratic staff member" who had worked for the DNC on voter databases and was shot and killed on July 10 near his
Washington, D.C., home.
Murray continued, "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the capture of his killers. So, obviously
there are suspicions there about what's happening and things are somewhat murky. I'm not saying – don't get me wrong – I'm
not saying that he was the source of the [DNC] leaks. What I'm saying is that it's probably not an unfair indication to
draw that WikiLeaks believes that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the leaks whether correctly
or incorrectly. "
It may be worth noting that conspiracy theories have sprung up around other Democratic figures, but Julian Assange hasn't brought
them up. Just took a strong interest in this one.
Final comment in this string, so readers can check out Craig Murray's site. Maybe Ron Unz can get a hold of him?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes,
very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it
is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation
for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity
successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Can't say it enough: Discount anybody who doesn't reference Julian Assange or Craig Murray (and Gavin MacFadyen if the national
Fox News stands by its sources and I believe they do) when opining on Seth Rich or the Democratic emails.
I saw that Dave Weigel is planning on writing a piece on the Seth Rich conspiracy
The #1 thing fueling it is the Media ignoring Assange and his associates emphatically stating that it was insiders, not Russia,
involved with the Democratic leaks. These people received them, and long after the election when they have no possible motive,
still vehemently deny that it was Russia. Craig Murray spoke out in December. They have perfect credibility, and at this stage,
no motive that could be suspect. But they continue to be utterly, completely, ignored while the Russia circus runs on. So, a bona
fide Bernie supporter is murdered and Julian Assange took extreme interest How do people *not* question what is going on?
My spidey sense tells me that Seth Rich was a provider of intelligence to Julian Assange, but he really does not know who killed
him. I think Assange holds out some hope that it was a random one-off thug thing, but deep down, suspects it's not. The guilt
would be tremendous. But, he doesn't know. Strongly suspects. Tortured with guilt.
@Dahlia There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up...
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway...
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story... Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Gavin MacFadyen seems to have had a relationship with Craig Murray, and both had/have a relationship with Julian Assange. Seth
Rich being in contact with Gavin MacFadyen greatly lends credibility to Craig Murray's account.
(Here, both are mentioned together in the book "Ghost Plane: The True Story Story of the CIA Torture Program"
https://books.google.com/books?id=NLzB7YXDHNUC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=gavin+macfadyen+craig+murray+cia&source=bl&ots=KKy1_V2atM&sig=1CYGRZjnOxmcRIGk9RNx1iQhWcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigk-7br_3TAhXo7oMKHTOrCT0Q6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=gavin%20macfadyen%20craig%20murray%20cia&f=false)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
@Dahlia Final comment in this string, so readers can check out Craig Murray's site. Maybe Ron Unz can get a hold of him?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes,
very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it
is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation
for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity
successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Can't say it enough: Discount anybody who doesn't reference Julian Assange or Craig Murray (and Gavin MacFadyen if the national
Fox News stands by its sources and I believe they do) when opining on Seth Rich or the Democratic emails.
@Eagle Eye Seth Rich was quite young and perhaps not 100% wise to the ways of the world.
Is it conceivable that he passed the DNC emails to Comey's FBI FIRST as evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and THEN handed another
copy to Wikileaks as backup?
Perhaps Rich went to Wikileaks only after Comeys' FBI gave him the brush-off?
But I must say something ....Every recent article pertaining to Seth Rich, including Mike's , misses the MEAT of the entire
story.
The MEAT of the story is to be found in Seth Rich's JOB.
What did he do, Dahlia ?
He was a VOTER DATA DIRECTOR for the DNC....for gosh sakes!
If the story begins anywhere, it begins HERE.
Seth Rich's story begins when we recognize the high probability that Seth came across SUBSTANTIAL and REPEATED irregularities
in the VOTER DATA, tilting the outcomes in favor of Hillary.
This is the crux of the case.
It is also fair to assume that Seth Rich , given his role as "data director" , was able to COLLECT these voter data discrepancies,
and collate them into a fool proof evidentiary format.
Its the DATA which Seth found , that is the key... ...its the MEAT of the story.
But the DATA and the repeated systemic irregularities which he became aware of, could have been glitches in the system for
all he KNEW.
This is where we get to ......the POTATOES.
What are the potatoes?.....the potatoes are the EMAILS which show an INTENTIONALITY behind the DATA irregularities......and
expose them not just as "glitches" in the system,but as potentially deliberate and "treasonous" voter fraud.
A very serious case of multiple felonies by the DNC machine, and its party bosses, could be made if you have both the MEAT
(the data)and the POTATOES(the emails) of the case.
But you need BOTH, one without the other is not enough.
Givens Seth's JOB, the high probability he had the DATA in HAND, may well be why he was shot in the back at four in the morning
on July 10th, 2016.
If anyone wishes to solve this case..(or prosecute it)..they need to find the DATA CHIP....because
while the emails may show an "intentionality" to usurp the voters say in the DNC nomination , the DATA provides the PROOF.
May there be no doubt on this,.... everyone "involved" in these "dirty shenanigans" wants that data "exterminated" for all
time, .....and the entire story SHUT DOWN.
Seth Rich , given his role as "data director" , was able to COLLECT these voter data discrepancies, and collate them into a
fool proof evidentiary format.
This explanation - that Seth Rich had direct evidence of massive vote fraud - has always seemed most likely to me. The leaks are
secondary.
Again, he most likely went to the FBI and/or the U.S. media FIRST, but was betrayed by them leading to his murder. He ALSO
passed the data to Wikileaks.
So let's estimate the NUMBER of fraudulent votes controlled by the DNC. There are several categories:
(1) Illegal aliens registered to vote through La Raza, SEIU and similar DNC fronts.
(2) Other spurious voter registrations, e.g. dead voters, double voting (different addresses), completely fictitious voter
registrations concocted by complicit SEIU staff at registrars' offices.
(3) Zombie votes - technically correct voter registration, but the vote is actually cast by the SEIU, e.g. residents of nursing
homes, mental hospitals, military votes (which often mysteriously are not delivered to the military voter),
Given the period of time during which this has been operative, and the need to make a serious nation-wide impact, it seems
reasonable to estimate that the DNC controls about 3-7 million illegal votes nationwide .
The largest number would be in California. Although California overall is a blue state, there are conservative pockets and
some conservative candidates came close to the Democratic candidate in statewide and local races.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
@JackOH I read the links. My understanding is that some cops will go rogue without instruction and on their own initiative
to jump the queue for advancement. There's not much deep-think to it. The political benefactor won't know any more than something
like "the problem was taken care of".
Seth Rich. Is there someone in the food chain who can apply pressure to find a credible suspect and, if possible, a motive?
Again, I'm just a casual reader, but the failure to get to the truth of the Seth Rich killing seems to empower a whole lot of
political mischief.
@JackOH SR42, your references are exactly what I was getting at in my comment #12 above.
I never took seriously the notion that American political decisions are made by violence and other criminal activities until
I got a very minor rough-up by a crooked cop for my smalltime local politicking. That cop later got a cushy government job under
the influence of a local Mr. Big whom I'd offended. Karma kicked in, and that cop's alcoholism and boorish behavior got him canned.
I never quit writing, but I was pretty damn scared for a while.
In all the categories of potential voter fraud you cited.
But I would imagine the vote "switching" from Bernie to Hillary, or the mysterious "disappearance" of a substantial percentage
of "Bernie votes" in key districts and perhaps certain states, too, is what caught Seth's eye.
But it could be all of it....and more too...for all we know....Without the data to look at..it's all just speculation.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
My own experience, which included a failed blackmail attempt against me, and, possibly, the failed solicitation of a bribe,
taught me something about American political process. I asked myself why in the hell are a few important local people getting
their knickers in a twist over a not very important guy who's doing no more than writing a lot and doing local radio a lot? The
only answer I came up with was they believed, falsely , I was staging a run for political office, that I was reasonably
persuasive and therefore a threat of some sort, and they wanted me pre-emptively in the bag. BTW-I did consider legal action against
some of these slobs, but effective legal process costs money I didn't have.
FWIW-I'm unhappy, too, about the hair-tearing speculation over the Seth Rich case. The only way I can think of to put much
of that speculation to rest is to find the killer and make the case against him.
I'd heard something echoing this a couple days ago, but found it so unbelievable. Then, Dave Weigel, et al., knowing for a
fact that statements from Julian Assange, Craig Murray, and the late Gavin MacFadyen are the reasons for interest in Seth Rich's
murder, completely write them out. They don't exist.
William Binney, arguably one of the best mathematicians ever to work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA officer
Ray McGovern, have argued that the emails must have come from a leak because a hack would be traceable by the NSA.
I'd forgotten this so many people including Scott Ritter of "Iraq has no WMD" fame have said similar.
But seriously, if you don't believe Assange or Murray who have firsthand knowledge, William Binney rests the case: leak not
hack.
Doesn't mean the murdered DNC operative was involved with leaks or that even if he was, that's why he was killed, but one can't
be closed-minded.
"... Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels. ..."
"... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. ..."
Neoliberalism, another word for 'money rules the world'.
Draghi visited the Dutch parliament, Baudet, FVD, asked him if, since
Draghi had warned Italy that leaving the euro would cost them about 100
billion euro, Ittalians debts, the Netherland would get about 100 billion
if we left the euro.
100 billion is what we lent, say, Draghi.
His 'answer' was that the euro is irreversible.
He apparently does not know that within tn years after the dissolution of
the Habsburg empire all the new states ahd created their own money.
Since all euo zone members still have their central banks, it is quite
easy to leave the euro.
No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the
US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both
the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the
propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym
for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is
Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Idiocracy it truly is.
As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew
Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The
Guardian of the Lies and so on.
Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism
Paul
Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a
columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder
of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified
before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic
policy.
@Agent76
Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a
columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder
of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified
before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic
policy.
If Hopkins continues to write in this vein, he may eventually produce a
truly first rate play. Which will mark him forever as a tool of Russia
and the mastermind of all
EVIL
, Putin.
@joe webb
one of the characteristic forms of comments here is this: one or two
sentences and nothing else. No sustained thought process which can relate
X to Y and Z, as in multi-factor analysis, historical parallels,
psychology, etc.
Failure of intelligence.
There is nothing like intelligence. (or lack thereof)
@Agent76
Mar 18, 2014 US support of violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine: Video
Compilation
Shocking and insightful videos detailing the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic,
ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine. The videos examine the ongoing US
support of these groups, including the Svoboda party and Right Sector.
@Kiza
No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the
US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both
the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the
propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym
for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is
Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Idiocracy it truly is.
As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew
Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The
Guardian of the Lies and so on.
This 'impeachment' thing should really be called JEW COUP.
Jews run the media and shape the Narrative.
So, the Liberation of Aleppo was called the 'Fall of Aleppo'.
So, Alqaeda elements in Syria were called 'moderate rebels'. So, we were fed lies about Libya to have it destroyed.
And so much fuss is made about Evil Putin but we hear nothing of what
Jewish oligarchs did to Russian economy in the 90s.
Jews are so powerful they can even convince American Morons that
marriage = two men buggering one another.
This is not about impeachment. Jews hate Trump because he wants better
ties with Russia, a nation that freed itself from total Jewish Control.
"Intelligence is just a tool to be used toward a goal, and goals are not
always chosen intelligently" - Larry Niven from "Protector"
Also,
You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of
seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the
place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for
people's hatred and fear.
Not at all.
After the awkward "russian reset" attempt by the Clinton-Obama axis of
diplomacy, which somehow failed, the intolerance to all things Russian
started during Snowden's "Summer of Surveillance" redpilling (i.e. 2013).
Systemic shock mode was entered when the Ukraine liberation encountered
unsuspected and sudden (and definitely "reactive") pushback in 2014 and
Russia started supporting Syria against the ISIS "our temporary friends"
clownshow in 2015.
(The other "primary target for people's hatred and fear", the always good
to amuse the hoi polloi cardboard cutout Ghaddafi had sadly shuffled of
this mortal coil a bit earlier. So sad! And the bullshit of "Iran's gonna
have da bomb next week, this time for sure" stuff going on since the 90s
didn't get much traction anymore.)
@ThereisaGod
It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory
and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyally is
tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside.
@Anon
single factor analysis. It is not just the jews. The Dems are a
coalition of blacks, jews, asians, indians, mexers, and some working
class whites who have not left yet for the GOP and Trump, AND White
Liberals, mostly professionals, who have sold out to globalism and its
One World of Consumers.
Yes, there is a so-called 'Liberal
Coalition' of various groups. But are they equal in power and influence?
In truth, Jews dominate.
For example, Asians have no agency of their own. They just follow the
narratives of other. Mexers are happy to be Guillermos and have no
interest apart from tacos. Their only politics is calling whites
'gringos', blacks 'negritos', and Asians 'chinos'. Blacks are loud and
vocal, but it's all about blacks. Blacks have no knowledge and interest
in the larger world. They are very tribal and provincial.
If not for Jewish Power, NO ONE would be interested in Russia. That is
a Jewish thing.
If blacks ran the Democratic Party, they would fixate on some OTHER ISSUE
to get at Trump.
Blacks jumped on the Russia bandwagon ONLY BECAUSE Jews set the template
and the meme. Since that is the Anti-Trump Meme as chosen by Jews, all
anti-Trumpers are parroting the same crap. But Russia became the Key
Issue because Jews are obsessed with Russia and what it implies. Jews set
the Narrative and others play do the Parrotive.
The Powerful get to decide the Narrative. The less powerful just tag
along like dogs and repeat the mantra set by the Powerful. They are
parrots with the Parrotive.
Also, only Jews have the direct power in media, deep state, and
finance(owning all politicians through AIPAC) to pull off what is
happening.
Just think. Suppose Asians don't want to go after Trump but Jews want
to. What would happen? Jews would decide, and Asians would have choice
but to go along.
Now, suppose Asians want to go after Trump, but Jews don't want to. Could
Asians push for impeachment without Jewish support? NO way.
Or suppose blacks want to go after Trump, but Jews say NO and won't
give anti-Trump support in media and Deep State. Would it happen? No.
Or suppose blacks want to work with Trump but Jews want to go after him.
Would it happen? Yes, because Jews get to pull all the strings.
So, while it is true that there is a Democratic Coalition, Jews have
1000x the power of other groups. I mean consider how most Jews and most
Arabs are in the Democratic Camp, but Zionists have far more power than
Palestinians/Muslims do.
This is a
Jew Coup
because Jews are the single-most powerful
element in Democratic Party, GOP, Congress(by buying up politicians),
FED, Wall Street, and etc.
Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell
Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern
Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.
@Ace
We are awash in lies: race, racism, white privilege, constitutional
America, living Constitution, propositional nation, nation of immigrants,
American exceptionalism, responsibility to protect (humanitarian war),
Assad the Dictator, Islamism/moderate Muslims, our ally Israel, our ally
Saudi Arabia, evilevil Putin, the one and only holocaust, right-wing
National Socialism, N"A"TO, evil Serbia, Islam's contribution, the
Crusades, patriarchy, gender, homosexual marriage, women's suffrage,
diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, welfare state, socialized
medicine, objective MSM, Saint Abraham, Saint Ze-dong, Obama the natural
born citizen, the administrative state, frustrated ghetto rocket
scientists, indispensable nation, Gaddafi the Tyrant, Axis of Evil,
Judeo-Christianity, the Three Abrahamic religions, globalism, free trade,
immigrant monetary contribution doing jobs Americanswon't do, climate
change, agw, alternative energy, reasonable gun control, nation building,
the glass ceiling, pay inequality, vote suppression, the evil of
segregation, black nationalism, private prison oppression, disparity in
sentencing, Roe v. Wade, the innocence of Mumia Jaba Jabu, reparations,
BLM, debt ceiling, government shutdowns, unemployment, inflation, the
"Federal" Reserve, dual citizenship, the EU, refugees, metissage
commercials, homosexuality in commercials, white burglars in commercials,
POC in commercials. Mexico our friend, GOP principles, bipartisanship,
McCarthy the Indecent, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Israel's mistake re the
Liberty, the _________ Commission, St. Martin the Patriot, Robert Mueller
the FBI Muslim realist, the neocon patriot, Saint Franklin, the New Deal,
the "US" Chamber of Commerce Keynesianism, quantitative easing, and St.
Hillary the Incorrupt.
Oh yes. And our desperate need for Nigerians, Syrians, and Somalis. And
Hindu software engineers.
I'm out of ideas now at which point one must say, "And I could go on and
on."
@El Dato
This must be the next basic text for an updated Billy Joel's "We didn't
Start the Fire" (clip needs to be updated to have Snowden on 24/7 TV and
no-one cares)
@Agent76
Sorry joe webb I do not partake in any flavor of Kool-aid! DECEMBER 25,
2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W.
Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier
Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German
reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch"
eastwards towards Russia.
@huswa
That's a really interesting view about operating on principle vs. on
in-group relations. Can you please reply with some relevant articles if
you have them?
I've traveled quite a lot and have seen principled people in all parts of
the world. Sometimes they are really drowned out by the masses. I do not
think that altruism is specific to whites. The "White Man's Burden"
wasn't altruism. Colonizers weren't in it to lift up the world. They
wanted money and other resources. As an example they crippled local
economies t Of course, they did a lot of good
"... Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. ..."
"... Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode and focus on issues here at home. ..."
Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought
that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the
exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds
himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. I tend to favor "flexibility"
over a all-neocon administration (Geo. W. Bush) but Trump's "flexibility" is in reality "impulsiveness"
- let's just hope more stable voices prevail inside the White House of the President of the United
States Donald "It's Complicated" Trump, AKA The Apprentice.
Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode
and focus on issues here at home. We still have an immigration problem. The problem of chronic
unemployment continues to exist. The people that were displaced by the transfer of our industrial
sector overseas continue to haunt us. Student loans are like a millstone around our academic necks.
We bailed out the banksters after giving them an open-door policy to near ad infinitum indebt
our student body. The Fed not only creates money out of thin air, but it is a price setting entity
owned and operated in large foreign bankers; not Federal but Foreign. Does anyone know when setting
wages and prices have been successful? We know the Fed has been a dismal and costly failure. Count
their made in DC disasters since its inception in 1913. The unemployment stabilizer for the young
from the non- elite class is the U.S. military with risk to life and limb. Time to bring back
the military draft without any exceptions then designer wars will be challenged by the vast-unwilling
when war becomes a reality not something to watch on nightly TV. Is there hope? There was absolutely
no hope in the 2016 presidential election. The worst imaginable field of candidates in modern-history
and we are now stuck with Trump and family who seem to enjoy wars, but have not participated in
U.S. wars.
Is Mr. Buchanan aware that these "war guarantees" are a two-way street? Is he aware that Latvians
and Montenegrans have fought for America? And out of proportion to their size?
I believe the question should be more like what is the Pentagons Empire Dreams and Goals?
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The
underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman, who examined
2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands.
Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically
within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the *Pentagon*
one of the largest landowners worldwide!
"Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?"
It appears he never did nor cared to ..
P.T. Barnum was right again .
We who clamored for an alternate path stuck our jaws out in desperation and were sucker-punched
again .
The Donald laughing all the way as he had no intent to know, care, or understand what he was getting
into or what he wanted to do.
He just wanted to be the Boss .
SO he is; and floundering by the hour.
May I suggest taking a different course here? Why are the 'Peace' Presidents winners change when
in they are in the White House? And for all the complaints of the liberal MSM, why is the MSM
so pro-war? Look the peace writers on the Times are the economist, Krugman, and religious one,
Douthat.
Anyway, I don't think Trump ever understood this because he believed the big mistake of the
Iraq was not winning in 12 months and taking their oil.
USA made a strategic mistake in the 1990s, focusing on the destruction and the weakening of Russia
after the collapse of communism and the collapse of the USSR.
If the US instead went the other way and supported Russia and strengthened its position in the
post-Soviet space and in Eastern Europe, now US would have had a good ally in Eurasia, and not
on what the Baltic dregs and torn by civil war fascist Ukraine.
Eurasia under the control of the United States, anyway, will not take place for any scenario,
but especially now – with the loss of the state of world hegemony.
Eurasia under the leadership of Germany, Poland or Ukraine is the same scenario from the category
of unscientific fantasy.
But Eurasia led by Russia – it was a very real and viable project in the 1990s, the word, alive
now only in a different, less responsive to the interests of the United States, form.
By the way, the project more attractive to US than indicated by the perspective of the hegemony
of China in Eurasia.
Only now, the US should try very hard to, despite the flaws in his politics in the 1990s, to strengthen
the position of Russia, and not any other player as Eurasian leader.
Nonsense. It's perfectly well and good to be exceptional and think of oneself as such. The
issue does one's exceptionalism lead to taking unnecessary risks or needlessly throwing one's
weight around.
I think that is the issue. I think we are also being reminded that our exceptionalism does
always make us right or intimidate others to do our bidding. That in the long run, it might have
been a good idea not to disrupt the lives of others merely because they disagree or live a life
different from our own. It fact, needlessly destroying the life of others for the sake of whatever
– in unethical, something we used to press for, despite our own imperfections.
Nothing quite so empty as undermining other people to get one's way and then attempting to
blackmail with the consequence of your underhanded behavior.
"... "What Is America's Goal in the World?" Total domination. ..."
"... You're conflating Russia and the Soviet Union. No country has been more hegemonic that the US ..."
"... Any country, family, tribe, organization etc. on the rise is driven by the shared concern of expanding the pie. But once the pie gets big enough, the major concern of most participants is increasing their own personal share of the pie. Thus whether or not America has a goal in the world, the goal of the deep state participants is to enrich themselves – to keep the gravy train rolling. ..."
"... Kosovo, Iraq and the recent symbolic (but still murderous) attack on Syria were all openly in defiance of the established rules, to which the US had voluntarily signed up. For the globalists, the rules only have any force when they serve the purposes of the globalists. ..."
For the World War II generation there was clarity.
The attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec 7, 1941, united the nation as it had never been before - in the
conviction that Japan must be smashed, no matter how long it took or how many lives it cost.
After the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, however, Americans divided.
Only with the Berlin Blockade of 1948, the fall of China to Mao and Russia's explosion of an atom
bomb in 1949, and North Korea's invasion of the South in 1950, did we unite around the proposition
that, for our own security, we had to go back to Europe and Asia.
What was called the Cold War consensus - that only America could "contain" Stalin's empire - led
to NATO and new U.S. alliances from the Elbe to the East China Sea.
Vietnam, however, shattered that Cold War consensus.
The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam had repudiated the war by
1968, and switched sides to sympathize with such Third World communists as Fidel Castro, Che Guevara,
Ho Chi Minh and the Sandinistas.
Center-right presidents - JFK, Nixon, Reagan - accepted the need to cooperate with dictators who
would side with us in fighting Communism.
And we did. Park Chung-Hee in Korea. The Shah in Iran. President Diem in Saigon. Gen. Franco in
Spain. Somoza in Nicaragua. Gen. Mobuto in the Congo. Gen. Pinochet in Chile. Ferdinand Marcos in
Manila. The list goes on.
Under Reagan, the Soviet Empire finally fell apart and the USSR then disintegrated in one of the
epochal events of history.
The American Century had ended in America's triumph.
Yet, after 1989, no new national consensus emerged over what ought to be our role in the World.
What should we stand for? What should we fight for?
What Dean Acheson had said of our cousins in 1962: "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not
yet found a role," was true of us.
What was our role in the world, now that the Cold War was history?
George H.W. Bush took us to war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Soaring to 90 percent approval,
he declared America's new role was to construct a New World Order.
Those who opposed him, Bush acidly dismissed in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1991, the 50th anniversary of
Pearl Harbor:
"We stand here today on the site of a tragedy spawned by isolationism. And it is here we must
learn - and this time avoid - the dangers of today's isolationism and its accomplice, protectionism."
Neither Bush nor his New World Order survived the next November.
Then came payback for our sanctions that had brought death to thousands of Iraqis, and for the
U.S. bases we had foolishly planted on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia - Sept. 11, 2001.
George W. Bush reacted by launching the two longest wars in our history, in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and announced that our new role was to "end tyranny in our world."
The Bush II crusade for global democracy also fizzled out.
Barack Obama tried to extricate us from Afghanistan and Iraq. But he, too, failed, and got us
into wars in Yemen and Syria, and then started his own war in Libya, producing yet another failed
state.
What does the balance sheet of post-Cold War interventions look like?
Since 1991, we have lost our global preeminence, quadrupled our national debt, and gotten ourselves
mired in five Mideast wars, with the neocons clamoring for a sixth, with Iran.
With the New World Order and global democracy having been abandoned as America's great goals,
what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone know?
Globalists say we should stand for a "rules-based world order." Not exactly "Remember the Alamo!"
or "Remember Pearl Harbor!" A quarter century after the Cold War, we remain committed to 60-year-old
Cold War alliances to defend scores of nations on the other side of the world. Consider some of the
places where America collides today with nuclear powers: the DMZ, the Senkakus, Scarborough Shoal,
Crimea, the Donbass.
What is vital to us in any of these venues to justify sending an American army to fight, or risking
a nuclear war?
We have lost control of our destiny. We have lost the freedom our Founding Fathers implored us
to maintain - the freedom to stay out of wars of foreign counties on faraway continents.
Like the British and French empires, the American imperium is not sustainable. We have issued
so many war guarantees it is almost assured that we will be dragged into every future great crisis
and conflict on the planet.
If we do not review and discard some of these war guarantees, we shall never know peace. Donald
Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, out May 9, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
"The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam "
"During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam
to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies
sent to Vietnam. To justify America's commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which
a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another
like a 'falling row of dominoes'. The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents
and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam."
So, in complete honesty, who "took" us to Vietnam?
Pat Buchanan is not an historian. He is a propagandist with an agenda to persuade.
Anonym, May 12, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT • 100 Words
Any country, family, tribe, organization etc. on the rise is driven by the shared concern
of expanding the pie. But once the pie gets big enough, the major concern of most participants
is increasing their own personal share of the pie. Thus whether or not America has a goal in the
world, the goal of the deep state participants is to enrich themselves – to keep the gravy train
rolling. If only one does this, it will not harm the overall much but when most are more
problem than solution, the pie starts to shrink.
Corvinus, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Realist
"No country has been more hegemonic that the US."
The British up until the 1950′s would have something say about it in light of their vast colonial
empire crumbling. Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral
nation. It was post-World War II that has America employed the "invade the world, invite the world"
strategy.
Rurik, May 12, 2017 at 4:09 pm GMT • 200 Words
what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone
know?
to destroy all resistance to global Zionist domination and the Zio/Anglo boot upon the face
of humanity for all eternity. Duh. (please note that the Zio/Anglo boot in question -- will stamp
on the face of the working class Brits as much as anyone else. The Anglo in the Zio/Anglo boot
represents the aristocrat/Royal/pedophile faction of England, [and their like-minded fellow travelers
in Hollywood and NYC, DC, Paris, Berlin, etc..) and not the average British man and women on the
street, who are slated for hell on earth, just as much as everyone else, perhaps a little more
so than others).
~ all of this was foreseeable as soon as Woodrow Wilson handed the keys to the US Treasury
to the world's greediest, most treacherous, tribal and ethnocentric men (war pigs) on the planet.
In fact it wasn't just foreseeable, but inevitable.
Corvinus, May 12, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
"Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic that the US."
No country is more hegemonic than the U.S. post-World War II. Then you could make a legitimate
case.
Randal, May 12, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
Globalists say we should stand for a "rules-based world order."
Which of course is every bit as dishonest as you'd expect from globalists. Kosovo, Iraq
and the recent symbolic (but still murderous) attack on Syria were all openly in defiance of the
established rules, to which the US had voluntarily signed up. For the globalists, the rules only
have any force when they serve the purposes of the globalists.
Randal, May 12, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Corvinus
Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral
nation
LOL! Amazing how an "isolationist/neutral" nation managed to expand continuously from a small
collection of remote and backward colonies in 1781 to a globe-bestriding empire with a history
of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia,
China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939.
The US might have been "isolationist/neutral" in the sense that it saw it as being in its own
interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European
rivals, but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use
of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on
the other side of the world.
It was hegemonic from the start, albeit starting small. A true heir of the British and European
nations which begat it.
What you describe is America's mendacious self-image, not reality.
"... Trump is another vassal/tool of the power elite. as all Presidents have been for decades. Some unhappily, but all completely. ..."
"... Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms. Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat Senators. ..."
"... He is thinning out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. ..."
"... "EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh, give me a break -- ..."
"... Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't get his wall. Period. For the rest of the agenda other than the wall – I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because his agenda is supported by a majority. ..."
"... The other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they care for Trump's agenda. ..."
"... Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and needs to be reigned in. ..."
"... Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected. ..."
The Trumpocalypse is already building a wall in the minds of the
prospective immigrant.
Amid immigration setbacks, one Trump strategy seems to be working:
Fear
Most notably, Trump signed an executive order during his
first week in office that, among other things, vastly expanded the
pool of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants who are deemed
priorities for deportation. [...] The most vivid evidence that Trump's
tactics have had an effect has come at the southern border with
Mexico, where the number of apprehensions made by Customs and Border
Patrol agents plummeted from more than 40,000 per month at the end of
2016 to just 12,193 in March, according to federal data.
Had a similar story, mutatis mutandis, been written by somone French in
France about French immigration, he or she would have been labeled
extreme right, or even fascist.
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning
out the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US
embassy in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles
airport. Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by
stepping on US soil. Making health care a matter for the states to
determine will erode Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford
to hand out free medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
"EXPANDING" H2B visas ? The mere EXISTENCE of such a visa leaves me
mindboggled. A visa to import landscapers, waiters & retail workers ?? In
a country of over 320 million & a "real" unemployment rate over 8% ? Oh,
give me a break --
H2B is a clear example that those researchers from Stanford (?) where
right: that the views/interests etc of 80-90% of Americans has exactly
ZERO influence over government/s policy.
Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK
government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet
process.
Trump's plan was to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Not to hit
Congress for the money. If Trump doesn't get Mexico to pay it, he doesn't
get his wall. Period.
For the rest of the agenda other than the wall –
I agree, but Trump was elected as the lesser evil of two. Not because
his agenda is supported by a majority. The 40% approval rating Trump
enjoys – that's how many support his agenda. It's not a majority.
The
other 10% that gave Trump an electoral college victory voted because they
wanted to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. Not because they
care for Trump's agenda.
Mission accomplished on dodging the danger of a
Hillary presidency. Now Trump is evaluated on his own dangerousness and
needs to be reigned in. His agenda is not particulary popular among
people that voted against Hillary, not for Trump. Support for it is soft,
and as Trump continues a divisive agenda push that creates too much
opposition – soft support withers away.
he is going to be the same in office as all previous Republican
administrations
. Worse: Hard to see how the following story can be
interpreted as anything up Trump-Kushner selling visas for personal
enrichment. This is FILLING the swamp with corrupt Chinese .
There's been all kinds of cucking from Trump. I knew it would happen
eventually, but never dreamed it would happen within the first 100 days.
His latest cuck is leaving DACA in place and agreeing to accept the
1250 Muslim refugees who Australia did not want after blustering that
Obama made a "stupid deal" and we would not take them. You can't take
anything Trump says to the bank as it could change tomorrow or next week
and he acts like it's nothing.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing
cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words - one for cowards and one
for fakes.)
Where I live, in Montana, young white guys still work construction and
landscaping jobs. It's an amazing oasis, really.
What scares me is that
immigration decisions are being made by people who just
can't imagine
themselves or their family ever working these kinds of jobs or
anything close. They're out of touch. They have no right to capitulate
like this.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
Sounds exactly like all the previous "conservative" parties in US or UK
government over the past few decades, then. It's a double sided ratchet
process.
@unit472
Anyone who thought Trump could wipe clean 50 years of accumulated
government grime in 100 days has excrement for brains. He's got
entrenched interests in D.C. that will not just give up their incomes and
influence. He's got a hostile media eager to bring the 'homeless' back to
front page status after they miraculously vanished during Obama's terms.
Sob stories without end. A Congress that is full of RINOs and 48 Democrat
Senators.
But progress is being made if you look. He is thinning out
the herd of visa issuing State Department apparatchiks. If the US embassy
in Yemen is closed there can be no Yemenis showing up in Dulles airport.
Cubans can no longer gain permanent residency in the US by stepping on US
soil. Making health care a matter for the states to determine will erode
Medicaid outlays as the states simply cannot afford to hand out free
medical care to their 'needy'.
It will take time to drain the swamp and it will be incremental but
with every judge he appoints to the Federal courts, with every Federal
bureaucrat retiring and with Republican Governors and legislatures doing
their thing it will start to dry up.
Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big
business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to
become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in
this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of
political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He
has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting
the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless
opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly
in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend
retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.
@ThreeCranes
A former psychology professor of mine who also worked as a counselor at a
crisis center told our class that he could tell the real suiciders from
the wannabes by whether, after the "bang" of the supposed gunshot to the
head, he could actually hear the phone dropping onto the floor. If he
didn't, then presumably the caller was clinging to some hope, which it
was his job to nurture.
Mr. Derbyshire, like you I chuckle whenever Pres. Trump's makes the PC
crowd clamor for a safe space. But if you are concerned with the
vilification and death of traditional America then snark doesn't cut it.
If you voted for Trump, then sorry, the joke' on you, bloke.
We probably both miss the Scranton PA or Binghamton NY of 1955, but
Trump or any pol is powerless to bring them back. The best we rubes stuck
in the heartland can hope for is that the transfer payments from the
costal elites keep coming, and that the dollar remains a reserve currency
so that the government can borrow to support us. As I see it, Trumps
policies , gutting healthcare, tax cuts for the investor class, will hurt
us "badwhites". That is a bad bargain for seing Rosie ODonnell cry, no
matter how sweet.
@Clark Westwood
Please, someone come up with a better word than "cuck" for describing
cowardly or fake conservatives. (Or two words -- one for cowards and one
for fakes.)
" How were these reptiles able to get their way on a major issue in the
Trump electoral agenda"
Very simple : Because they, the Democrats, own
and wield the "Racism" bludgeon, and there is nothing which terrifies a
meek, mild-mannered "Fair" Republican politico more than being labeled as
a :
RACIST
( not forgetting : " Enemy of women" , Homophobe, etc)
period.
And until these cowards learn to do their duty and persue that which
they were elected for, and ignore the tauntings of racism, and until they
begin to just throw it back, the racist label, at the crazy democrats,
they will be in the losers seat, period.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified
US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
Nobody here thinks that, you sanctimonious jerk-store.
Nobody here ever thought that. We fully expected the Trump presidency to
be even more difficult than the campaign, not less. We are angry because
Trump has reversed himself and sold out to the swamp. He is putting zero
or negative effort into the core issues that got him elected.
Worry not! The vice grip has been tightened , and now it's welded. You
think a con man from New York will betray his cabal buddies for a down on
his luck, beer chugging, and his world possession of a lifted 4×4, when
he has resorts to build and secure his little Zionist grand children that
one day will inherit the earth .Keep dreaming!
@Joe Hide
Trump evolved in the cut throat world of real estate and mega deals big
business over decades of time. It took dozens of years of deal making to
become powerful, wealthy, and President of the United States. He is in
this for the long game. He has to make deals with the worst sort of
political, military, and business psychopaths, to play the long game. He
has to trade the best outcomes for the people in exchange for not letting
the very worst outcomes prevail. His (and our) insane and ruthless
opponents still have great power and influence. Attacking them directly
in a frontal attack would be political suicide. Always the pretend
retreat then flank attack when the enemy loses cohesion and unity.
In First 2 Months in Office – Trump
Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion –
Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for
every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December,
2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous
president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in
additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush
served as president.
Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/
Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/
20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/
Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed
Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of
Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html
2010 Dems lost the House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state
level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House
seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.
Congress is the problem – not the president. Congress is dysfunctional.
Getting reelected is everything to those people. First and foremost,
congress people represent themselves – not their voters. Taking campaign
money from lobbyists to stop challengers in jerrymandered districts and
blue or red states, is paramount.
The last time congress really accomplished something was in the
Clinton administration. Newt Gingrich did good things (balancing the
budget and changed welfare). Other than open ended war, Bush congresses
did nothing. Obama's congress got a disastrously bad healthcare bill
passed and nothing else.
For sixteen years, the Bush and Obama congresses just spent more and
more money driving up the debt.
Trump is going to show his colors, when in a couple of months – a new
long-term spending bill is coming up for a monumental vote.
Will Trump veto the trillion-dollar deficit that congress will send to
him or not?
In First 2 Months in Office – Trump
Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama Increased Debt by $400 Billion –
Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for
every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December,
2016. That debt is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous
president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in
additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush
served as president.
Trump's 100 Days a Success
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/making-america-great-again-donald-trumps-100-day-success/
Illegal Immigration Down by Unprecedented 73%
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/29/trump-illegal-immigration-down-by-unprecedented-73/
20 Ways Trump Unraveled the Administrative State
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/11/20-ways-trump-unraveled-administrative-state/
Bit by bit, Trump methodically undoing Obama policies
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-03-US--Trump-Undoing%20Obama/id-c4fa9fa659394514aa645a7cfd3c31ed
Illegal Entrance into U.S. Lowest in 17 Years, Mexicans Too Afraid of
Trump
https://www.prisonplanet.com/illegal-entrance-into-u-s-lowest-in-17-years-mexicans-too-afraid-of-trump.html
2010 Dems lost the House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state
level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House
seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.
"... Last week, Madame Le Pen declared that 'finance' is a primary enemy of France. Bankers are now lumped with Muslims as dire threats to the republic. ..."
"... With promises to "drain the swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state zealots to head his cabinet. ..."
200 Words
As Ed Margolis comments in his latest piece in the Unz Review,
"
Last week, Madame Le Pen declared that 'finance' is a primary
enemy of France. Bankers are now lumped with Muslims as dire threats to
the republic.
Outgoing President Francois Hollande made the same
warning last year, but no one paid him any attention.
Coming from the hard-right Le Pen, it's a bombshell. 'Finance' is
really political code for Jews who dominate parts of France's media,
banking, and industry. France has Europe's largest Jewish population,
followed by Ukraine.
Le Pen's gun sights are trained squarely on the youthful Macron who
may, it is rumored, have some Jewish background, and squarely on his
former employer, the mighty French Rothschild banking empire."
It seems we have the same problem in the United States with a
(((tribal))) faction who dominate parts of media, banking, and industry in
the United States also holding our country ransom to their globalist agenda
albeit we call them Neocons, which is also a code word for Jews.
With promises to "drain the
swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint nothing but
Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state zealots
to head his cabinet.
Two Nations..one White...one non-White...occupying and competing for the
exact same LIVING AND BREEDING SPACE=VIOLENT RACE WAR...with great
international c0nsequences...I personally would like to see China nuked off
the map for exporting its population....
Trump is an enthusiast for importing Chinese Legal Immigrants into the
US...so they can enthusiastically vote his White Male voting bloc...into a
violently persecuted racial minority within the borders of America....And
while this is going on...Jared Taylor...Richard Spencer....and Steve Sailer
want to have eternal discussions about IQ test score psychometrics...and
PISA test scores...I despise all three of the aforementioned....
Nothing breathing space, control of oil, gas, mineral resources.
The USA consumes some 40% of those resources on this planet, with some 5% of
the world population.
Bill
,
May 5, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@jilles dykstra
In W European eyes the USA does not have political parties.
A USA correspondent long ago explained the mystery of the difference between
democrats and conservatives: conservatives is old money, democrats new.
Yet I do see a difference, democrats want war, conservatives are more
prudent about war.
So I was quite happy that Hillary was defeated, who I saw, and see, capable
of fighting a nuclear war against Russia, far from her home, but destroying
ours.
I had hoped that Trump would end USA militarism, what since Roosevelt has
been the great evil of this world.
Alas I fear that Deep State still is pursuing its goals, the goals Hillary
was expected to attain.
If Trump really wants to end USA militarism, or that Deep State is more
powerful than an elected president, for the present it is wait and see.
A USA correspondent long ago explained the mystery of the difference
between democrats and conservatives: conservatives is old money,
democrats new.
That's not it at all. The difference is in the industry they represent.
The Republicans represent the state: the energy, defense, and what's left of
the manufacturing industries. The Democrats represent the church: finance,
high-tech, education, entertainment, social work, and Sillycon Valley (now
that the valley is no long about manufacturing).
jilles dykstra
,
May 6, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT \n
200 Words
@IvyMike
mindless anti semitic blind worms wriggling throughout the internet
A great war cry, antisemitism, it is supposed, and, I must admit it does
most of the time, to silence any criticism of jews.
In the row in Europe
between Brussel and Hungary about ending Soros's activities in Hungary this
war cry now also has been used.
The Hungarian prime minister Orban had a talk with Brussels bureaucrat
Timmermans about throwing Soros out of Hungary, especially his 'prestigious'
university, in my view meant to undermine Hungarian nationalism.
Orban in his talk with Timmermans seems to have called Soros a
speculator, what he was, he made his fortune speculating in currencies.
He even was condemned to three months jail by a French court for trading
with foreknowledge.
Soros is hated to this day in Malaysia, they feel he lowered the value of
their currency, making their lives more expensive.
But now Timmermans has labeled 'speculator' as 'reeking of antisemitism'.
Hungary now demands that Timmermans be fired.
Brussels wants Hungary to adhere to EU values, this seems to include
allowing Soros to undermine the Hungarian government.
Sean
,
May 6, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT \n
200 Words
Wellington was aghast at the size of the army Napoleon brought to Waterloo
(and that was after Napoleon had made the fatal error of dividing his
force). Any objective objective observer aware of the correlation of forces
would have given Napoleon a far greater chance of victory at Waterloo that
any expert gave Trump. He risked everything including his fortune, because
it endless investigation by a hostile Hilary administration would have taken
it from him had he lost
Trump is like Peisistratos of Athens–the good tyrant who broke the
stranglehold of the aristocracy. A very capable businessman, who relies on
the support of the common people, just as the wealthy Peisistratos did.
Trump has also mobilised an army of the lower orders to overturn all
received wisdom about who rules and who can expect to benefit. Expect him to
reward his supporters in the only way that he would want to be rewarded
himself: with money. Trump will move left domestically.
As one commenter explained below, the encryption of communications change very little if all your
communications are watched. Envelope (metadata) in enough to watch you pretty closely.
What the NSA does not tell the FISA court is that its requests for approvals are a sham. That's
because the NSA relies on vague language in a 35-year-old executive order, known as EO 12333, as
authority to conduct mass surveillance. That's surveillance of everyone - and it does capture the
content of every telephone conversation, as well as every keystroke on every computer and all fiber-optic
data generated everywhere within, coming to and going from the United States.
This is not only profoundly unlawful but also profoundly deceptive. It is unlawful because it
violates the Fourth Amendment. It is deceptive because Congress and the courts and the American people,
perhaps even the president, think that the FISA court has been serving as a buffer for the voracious
appetite of the NSA. In reality, the NSA, while dispatching lawyers to make sophisticated arguments
to the FISA court, has gone behind the court's back by spying on everyone all the time.
In a memo from a now-former NSA director to his agents and vendors, leaked to the public, he advised
capturing all data from everyone all the time. This produces information overload, as there is more
data than can be analyzed; each year, it produces the equivalent of 27 times the contents of the
Library of Congress. Therefore, safety - as well as liberty - is compromised.
The recent mass killings in Boston, San Bernardino and Orlando were all preceded by text messages
and cellphone conversations between the killers and their confederates. The NSA had the digital versions
of those texts and conversations, but it had not analyzed them until after the killings - because
it has and has had too much data to analyze in a critical and timely manner.
So, why did the NSA announce that it is pulling back from its customary uses of Section 702? To
give the false impression to members of Congress that it follows the law. Section 702, the great
subterfuge, expires at the end of this year, and the NSA, which has spied on Donald Trump since before
he was president, fears the debate that will accompany the efforts to renew it - hence its softening
public tone.
Does anyone seriously think that senior NSA officials do NOT personally ENRICH themselves through
stock market manipulation in anticipation of earnings reports, mergers etc. based on illegal NSA
intercepts?
Does anyone think that at least NO NSA officer EVER uses illegally intercepted information
to blackmail others or otherwise to secure a secret advantage in dealing with others?
Does anyone think that Hillary's and the FBI's access to grossly illegal NSA intercepts was
NOT a key factor in the 2016 presidential and Congressional elections?
The backstory is that Trump has the power to fire them all, easily and without much in the
way of red tape. And that he can't be relied upon not to do so.
So, why did the NSA announce that it is pulling back from its customary uses of Section
702? To give the false impression to members of Congress that it follows the law. Section 702,
the great subterfuge, expires at the end of this year, and the NSA, which has spied on Donald
Trump since before he was president, fears the debate that will accompany the efforts to renew
it - hence its softening public tone.
Oh, and Trump can veto any renewal bill. Too bad he won't.
What will happen with this privacy thingy is that people with stuff to hide (legitimate
or not) will get their hands on strong encryption and the hoi polloi just doesn't care enough.
There needs to be a public movement toward encryption, so that everyone uses it. Then using
it won't be prone to the abuse of "probable cause."
What will happen with this privacy thingy is that people with stuff to hide (legitimate or
not) will get their hands on strong encryption and the hoi polloi just doesn't care enough.
There needs to be a public movement toward encryption, so that everyone uses it. Then using it
won't be prone to the abuse of "probable cause."
movement toward encryption
Think of a colleague, a personal enemy, a business partner, a spouse etc. Imagine you have access to their communications logs – a long list of times and other details
of each email, text, USPS letter, phone call, wire transfer etc. to or from the subject, including
the name of every person with whom she communicated, but NOT including the content of the message.
What conclusions could you draw from the following (with HT to Electronic Frontiers Foundation):
(1) Your business partner called a bankruptcy lawyer last Thursday and spoke for 27 minutes.
You do not know what was discussed because the communication was encrypted.
(2) Your spouse made several hours-long phone calls, wired money to a sibling in Brazil on
five occasions in 2 days, and contacted an airline. You do not know any details because the communications
were encrypted.
(3) The senior dean of admissions at Princeton exchanged 17 encrypted emails with an individual
in Saudi Arabia, and two days later received two bank transfers from another individual in Saudi
Arabia to her numbered bank account in Moldova. You do not know the content of the emails, nor
the amount of the wire transfers, because the communications were encrypted.
"... This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. ..."
"... The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing. ..."
"... And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. ..."
"... The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think) ..."
Introduction: Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right,
from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate
presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.
They obfuscate her program, substituting the label 'extremist' for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist
commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into
Emmanuel "Manny" Macron's champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen
addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees,
unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.
The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le
Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove
France from NATO's integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars.
Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched
bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the
EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase
trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel
Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
Le Pen's program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight
in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the
35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to
prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises
to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for
equal pay for women.
Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links
to terrorists.
Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs
Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited
from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande's Economy
Ministry, in charge of 'Industry and Digital Affairs' from 2014 through 2016. This was when the 'Socialist'
Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.
Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose
demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of
public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.
Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European
Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron's embrace of greater austerity for
French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO
wars on three continents.
Propaganda, Labels and Lies
Macron's pro-war, anti-working class and 'supply-side' economic policies leave us with only one
conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor,
not 'hard' or 'far' right – and certainly not 'fascist'.
Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no 'centrist', as the
media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current
supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.
The 'Macronistas' have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme 'nationalism', 'fascism', 'anti-Semitism'
and 'anti-immigrant racism'. 'The French Left', or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the
oligarchs' campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.
Le Pen is above all a 'sovereigntist': 'France First'. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs
and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling
the fight against imperial political power as 'hard right'. It is insulting to debase popular demands
for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies,
budgets and deficits as 'extremist and far right'.
Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction
of the National Front Party.
She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women's
rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers,
public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial
revitalization program over Macron's 'free market dogma'. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers
as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers
and business owners.
Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and
political journalists have aped the elite's slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize
the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the
profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters
of the 'double discourse' – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the
lesser evil with the greater evil.
If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his 'hard'
and 'extreme' neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades
in the streets in response to Macron's austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential
'critique' of 'impure reason'. They will claim that they were right all along.
If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine
will make an even stronger candidate in the next election if the French oligarchs' judiciary does
not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice.
This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left'
is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism,
mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. Thus any salves by the 'left'
or 'far-left' (Hi Syriza and your blanket amnesty of illegal immigrants at a time of 40% unemployment
in Greece!) will be temporary at best. No amount of welfare will make up for increased unemployment,
lowered wages, a lack of housing, a lack of affordable family foundation and ethnic displacement.
It makes me sick when I see so-called socialists making energetic campaigns to stop failed asylum
seekers being deported.
The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore
welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more
an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases
than they make in outsourcing and insourcing.
And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so
many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the
working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. It's painful to watch. One's ethnic
group having a majority and centrality in it's homeland is the most valuable thing imaginable.
The wealthy whites who sneer pay an exorbitant tax to insulate their children and raise them among
their own kind, but don't ever seem to realise.
The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often
exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they
don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and
thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think)
Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short
video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with
Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:
The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest
most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have
enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum
over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and,
instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran
and Palestine."
Do you remember anybody from recent history who also made similar lofty promises, but found
himself neutered by invisible rulers?
France (that hypocrite nation) is a proud part of the western civilisation, which thrives on
hegemony. So, LePen-the-cursed will not do anything to change that fundamental world order. Therein
lies the rub.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
True but misleading. Most of those deaths were due to accidentally introduced diseases. North
America, in particular, was largely emptied out by waves of new diseases that struck down tribes
that had never seen or heard of the white man.
Yes, there was some fighting, though much of it was factional rather than racial - eg, the
abused slaves of the Aztecs sided with the Spaniards for good reason . the Spaniards, at least,
weren't cannibals (except in the transubstantiational sense.) Yes, there were a few cases where
- after the vast accidental wipeout - whites noticed the disease vulnerability of the natives
and intentionally exploited it (smallpox tainted blankets).
But even if none of the deliberate massacres had been done, the demographics wouldn't look
much different - a Europe teeming with starving peasants simply wasn't going to stay put while
the recently-emptied North America sat mostly idle. Nature abhors a vacuum and adverse-possession
laws exist for a reason.
Today, of course, whites in Europe and America contracept themselves to extinction and then
bitch and moan about Moslem and Mexican invasion . silly people. At least the American Indians
didn't do it to themselves.
@Z-man Amanpour isn't a Neocon, per say, as she isn't genetically a Jew. However since she
married and had an offspring with a Jew and from this interview's tone she now qualifies. lol
She is also a beast to look at or listen to. (Grin)
@jilles dykstra The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
- the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
- the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@unpc downunder The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though
opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"... America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them. ..."
"... I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later ..."
"... A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so. ..."
"... Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so. ..."
"... Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." ..."
The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort
to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance
their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new
technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal.
This increase in capability is astonishing - boosting the overall killing power of existing US
ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three - and it creates exactly what one would
expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a
nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.
It continues:
Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers
outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed
its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.
This study was co-authored by America's top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry
and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and
Theodore Postol. Their report continues:
This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from
the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear
strategy and intentions.
Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly
feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability - a capability that would require Russia to undertake
countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian
nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the
possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created
by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used
in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred.
The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be
likeiier from Russia than from the U.S.:
Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily
on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot
see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States.
(The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)
In other words: whereas Trump would have about 30 minutes to determine whether Putin had launched
a blitz-first-strike attack, Putin would have less than 15 minutes to determine whether Trump had
- and if at the end of that period, on either side, there is no certainty that no blitz-first-strike
attack had been launched by the other, then that person would be obligated to launch a blitz attack
against the other, upon the assumption that not to do so would result not only in a toxic planet
with nuclear winter and universal starvation, but also in a humiliating and scandalous absence of
retaliation against that perpetrator, which would be a humiliation on top of an annihilation, and
thus a sharing of blame along with the actual perpetrator, which sharing, for whatever term might
remain during that passive party's continued existence, would probably be an unbearable shame and
result quickly in suicide, if that national leader's own surviving countrymen don't execute him before
he kills himself.
Inevitably, the strictly personal morality and self-image of a nation's leader in that type of
situation are factors other than the very public global consequences that will determine the person's
decision; but, with only (at most) 15 minutes to decide on the Russian side, and 30 minutes to decide
on the American side, there is an inestimably high chance now, that a nuclear war will terminate
the lives of everyone who currently exists and who doesn't soon die from the ordinary causes before
then. Even the most dire projections of the dangers from global warming come nowhere close to matching
that danger.
The question, now, then, is: How did the world come to this extraordinarily ominous stage? The
co-authors repeatedly refer to the secretiveness at the top of the American government as one essential
source, such as " which has largely been concealed from the general public " and " policymakers
outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed
," and these passages refer to an ordinary phenomenon in conspiracies at the top of a large criminal
operation such as corporate criminality, where only a very small circle of individuals, commonly
a half-dozen or even less, are made aware of the operation's chief strategic objective and of the
main tactical means that are being put into place so as to execute the plan. In this particular instance,
it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but,
clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic
missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this
situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has,
as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic
objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public
that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of
the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan. Typically in such
a situation, the leader who has inherited such a plan will be assassinated if he gives any clear
indication of an intention to reverse or cancel it (the key insiders are typically obsessive about
'success', especially at so late a stage in it); and, so, if Trump were to try to do that, he would
almost certainly try to hide that fact until the inherited plan has already become effectively deactivated
and no longer a threat.
The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance,
on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence
- the prior system, for deterrence, having been called "MAD" for Mutually Assured Destruction, the
idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world
would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a 'winner' and a 'loser' in such a
conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable
planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being 'winnable', was
the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations,
Foreign Affairs and International Security , both formally introducing the concept
of "Nuclear Primacy" or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia
. Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such
idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream. As the final link above
(the article that's linked-to immediately before) explains, the source even prior to George W. Bush
goes all the way back to 24 February 1990 when his father, then also the U.S. President, secretly
initiated the operation ultimately to conquer Russia, and within that article are links to the ultimate
source-documents about that origin of the path toward world-ending nuclear war; so, getting to the
original causes of the steady progression after 24 February 1990 in the direction of a conquest of
Russia by the U.S. (assisted by its allies) can now be addressed by historians, even though only
now is it finally being revealed to the public as news, though 27 years after it had actually begun
in a very fateful decision by George Herbert Walker Bush, which has already cost American taxpayers
trillions of dollars for no good purpose and resulting perhaps in the ghastliest ultimate end.
This article is being submitted for publication to all news-media without charge, in the hope
that the current U.S. President will comment publicly upon it, even if only to ridicule it so as
to avoid being assassinated for referring to it at all. This is an extremely dangerous time in history,
and Donald Trump is now on a very hot seat, which any intelligent and accurately informed person
recognizes to be the case. If ever the world needed courageous great leadership, now is the time;
because, without that, we might all soon be entering hell. To avoid it, starting now 27 years after
the U.S. government initiated this path, would be enormously difficult, but not yet totally impossible.
This is where we are at the present time; and,
ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring
as a result.
This extreme danger is the new global reality. If the elimination of the threat does not come
from the U.S. White House, the culmination of the threat will - regardless of which side strikes
first. The decision - either to invade Russia, or else to cancel and condemn America's decade-plus
preparation to do so - can be made only by the U.S. President. If he remains silent about the matter,
then Putin can reasonably proceed on the assumption that he'll have to be the one to strike first.
He didn't place himself in that position; the U.S. regime did. Let's hope that the U.S. will stand
down the threat, now.
100 Words What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with
Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching
nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises
to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim!
Read More
100 Words I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical
that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's
claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the
reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make
meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa
Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. Read
More
300 Words It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the
Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have
caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared
to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs – calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as
a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. Read More
A global coalition of former military leaders and diplomats who had responsibility over
nuclear weapons is launching a "shadow security council" to offer advice to world leaders on
how to reduce what they consider to be the growing danger of a nuclear conflict fueled by the
rhetoric of President Donald Trump and destabilizing moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I wonder what these "destabilizing moves" are. Today we have launch-on-warning, precise nukes,
stealth delivery services, hacks in hardware and software, weird stuff in orbit, and "missile
defense against Iran" in Europe which can be repurposed in a second to attack Russia. Unless the
airheads notice that the "destabilizing moves" come from the US, there won't be much progress.
We survived the MAD phase only through tremendous luck, there were more computer errors, brown
pants moments and lost nukes than one would like to think possible. Let's not waste this break
that God has given us.
100 Words Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be
preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They
have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.
They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership
of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and
promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at
full $ while they kept their bonuses).
If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it.
Read More Agree:
Z-man
200 Words If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach
front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department,
and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.
Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when
there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by
the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them – you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe,
and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her
off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and
you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by
local animosity – maritime disputes, arming India, etc).
Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation
– called living on the same planet – where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear
fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties
that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.
Unless you don't have nuclear weapons then your country and lore is up for the taking on a
whim. Read More
200 Words Well. Now we know what constitutes the true Obama legacy: "The new kill capability
created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will
be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred."
This is in addition to the Obama-approved mess on the Russian borders with Ukraine ("ever since
the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result")
and the Israel-pimped war in Syria where Russians have been fighting ISIS along with the legitimate
government of Syria, while Israel and the US were caught on helping the ISIS- and Al Qaeda-affiliated
"freedom fighters."
Is there any honest and knowledgeable person in a vicinity of the "deciders" to explain them the
consequences of a high-level radiation for their grandkids? The deciders care not about the hundreds
of thousands of other-peoples' children that died as a result of US-led "humanitarian interventions,"
but maybe they could get some resemblance of empathy rush when picturing their own progeny hit
by a nuclear force? Idiots. Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments Quartermaster
,
May 5, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT \n
100 Words Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans,
insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant
damage to the US or the world?
Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence
is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.
America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic
Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked
would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that
if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.
Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear.
Read More
100 Words The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences
which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of
"mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming
first strike.
So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long
as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on
the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats"
Read More
200 Words A great article by Eric Zuesse, the best I have seen on the subject. A devastating
nuclear war is almost inevitable if the situation is allowed to persist. There were several nearly
catastrophic incidents in the last cold war when warning times were much more generous. Similar
incidents, in the near future would likely be game over for human civilisation and even the human
race itself.
It really doesn't matter whether the US/European oligarchy is really planning to nuke Russia
and/or China or not, the situation is just as dangerous either way. The setting up of what is
evidently a first strike capability while simultaneously degrading their potential opponents warning
times is well nigh suicidal. One could hope that there is someone in the US/NATO military who
is not too functionally autistic to see things from the other guys point of view but I doubt it.
If such a person existed, they might reflect on the fact that if the roles were reversed, most
of their colleagues would be clamouring for a first strike of their own before the missile "defence"
is fully operational.
Finally, it doesn't even matter whether the missile "defence" works or not. Unless both sides
know it doesn't work, and can also be sure that the other side knows that it doesn't work, and
also that it can't be made to work, it is just as dangerous.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
100 Words Frankly, it's about time "compellence" replaced deterrence in dealing with Russia.
For all his faults, Putin seems more or less sane, but he's already 64 years old. When Russia
has its next succession crisis (they're good at this stuff), the new incumbent may be much less
tractable and dangerous.
100 Words Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.
We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze"
has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield
and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.
How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability?
Read More
Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill
the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive,
we win!
Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command
Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid
of skulls. Read More
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded
obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor
of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious
days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories
of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands
the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral
damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps
towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers
cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that
blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source
of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the
Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave
it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests
is secure. Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as
you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul.
Read More Pandos
,
May 5, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
200 Words
@Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but
I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The
Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude
above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable
to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica,
let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed
explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly
hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession
of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple – unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness – once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks – there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback – in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this – it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited
$ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality.
Read More
100 Words This "investigative historian" confects his bad dream out of very little substance.
Quotes from the respectable enough Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists plus a great deal of imagination
and major omissions allow him to paint a fantastic picture of raving lunatics thinking of "conquering"
or "invading" Russia. (Yes he did use those words despite positing a scenario in which the Dr.
Strangeloves would wipe out Rusdia with a first strike! His psychic medium clearly has forgotten
to consilt the ghosts of Napoleon and Hitler).
One major omission is to note what a quick search for "super fuze" immediately discloses, namely
that the US Navy's upgrade is already old news and largely complete so far as the increase in
capacity that Zuesse describes is concerned.
Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the
bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command
Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid
of skulls. Useless quote without a believable source and still needs to have the context provided.
Read More Anonymous
White Male ,
May 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. "If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed,
no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from
moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically
or financially."
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder "
Apparently you haven't heard of what England, France and other colonial nations had been doing
in centuries past, and heck, even up till now (Libya, anyone?).
200 Words
@another fred Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.
We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze"
has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield
and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.
How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? For an explanation,
read my previous comment and this one.
START treaties have limited the number of missiles on both sides, at a time when super-fusing
did not exist. This means that each side had enough missiles to destroy a percentage of the missiles
of the other side (probably around 40-50%), but not all of them, thus MAD. With super-fusing,
the side which strikes first can destroy a much higher percentage of retaliatory missiles on fixed
and mobile launchers (90-95%) and still have some left over to threaten civilians in large cities,
especially if ABMD can destroy all of the remaining 5-10% of retaliatory missiles.
The hardest to destroy will remain the submarine launched missiles, but US military feel confident
that they are tracking all Russian nuclear missile submarines with their attack submarines (and
all the new and noisy Chinese submarines as well) and they could destroy them all on command.
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no
command any more. Read More
In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor
anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze"
on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the
principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who
has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of
reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia.
The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this
morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the
more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan.
Reading statements like this one, and other observations by Philip Giraldi, have reluctantly
made me into a conspiracy minded person when it comes to politics. After all, does anyone seriously
believe that the pretentious, metro-sexual Barry Obama entertained any such "Dr. Evil" like plots
to concur the world prior to being sworn in as POTUS? Of course he didn't. He, even less than
Trump, probably had no idea what he was getting himself into by running for president. It must've
been a shocker for both of these men when they found out just how much potentially damaging intel
that the CIA and NSA has on them through perfectly legal NSA spying. Would the CIA assassinate
a president who got in the way of America's interests (as defined by them)? Maybe, but why would
they need to?
The Deep State is in complete control of our foreign policy now. Our democracy and freedom
were already largely lost due to giant asymmetries in knowledge between the US Citizenry and elected
officials on the one hand, and the Deep State on the other. "Knowledge is power" as they say.
This state of affairs was gradually imposed on an unsuspecting public through such legislative
gems as the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 and the Patriot Act.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
100 Words
@Pandos Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke
exchange. It is their fault.
Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration - a lie.
Rip that shield from their hands. You have hit upon something that is extremely important, and
studiously avoided by most: the Israeli-Saudi alliance. The worst of the Arabs are Saudi Arabians.
The worst of the Sunnis are Saudi Arabians (and on average, Sunnis are worse than Shites). No
doubt, the worst ruling caab in the Middle East,. whether royal family or political party (such
as Likud), is the House of Saud.
200 Words One of the WWII planners was Frankfurter, also the writer of the Lend Lease Law
that enabled Roosevelt to give war aid to any country.
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two
Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983
After Hitler began deporting jews to concentration camps, one of them escaped, and was smuggled
tot the USA, the Vichy France, Spain, Portugal route.
This jew told Frankfurter what was going on.
Frankfurter answered 'I do not believe one word you're saying'.
Much later Frankfurter explained 'I did not say he was lying, I said I did not believe him'.
In 1939 Hitler threatened jews with 'ausrottung', the exact meaning of this word then is debated,
'if they again started a world war'.
My interpretation of the Frankfurter statements is that he had not expected Hitler to carry
out his threat.
100 Words
@Jake Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans,
insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant
damage to the US or the world?
Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence
is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.
America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic
Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked
would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that
if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.
300 Words Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion.
China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now
(but advancing in leaps and bouts).
The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites"
in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise
missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well
as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which
target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered
by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to
target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any
on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least
two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian
missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian
submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia
has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any
given time.
Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at
least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to
shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which
are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor
is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make
even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US.
Read More
100 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. "Russia is pretty fascist."
Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land
of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made
a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:"
https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish
Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the
Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton
that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli
citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
Read More
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded
obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor
of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious
days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories
of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands
the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral
damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps
towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers
cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that
blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source
of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the
Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave
it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests
is secure. I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
Read More SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
200 Words Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the
authors of these dire policy statements:
Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also
a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown -
For 2
Professors, Like Father, Like Son
Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description,
Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster
who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to
be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that
they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration
bombing of Kosovo
https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond
; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait
https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war
and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts
Read More
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work.
Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the
Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT
reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited
$ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. This just sounds
like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something
and remarket it? Read More
100 Words
@Kiza Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China
is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but
advancing in leaps and bouts).
The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites"
in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise
missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well
as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which
target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered
by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to
target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any
on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least
two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian
missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian
submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia
has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any
given time.
Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least
two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot
down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also
almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US
ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a
partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based)
discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised
from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2′s.
Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof.
Read More SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.
US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal
Adolf did NOT "share the goal" of "conquest and enslavement of mankind."
Adolf's goal was nationalistic, not global; the clue is hidden in plain sight:
National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)
Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land
of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made
a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:"
https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish
Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the
Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton
that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli
citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized
every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once
in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US? Read More
200 Words
@Randal The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences
which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of
"mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming
first strike.
So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long
as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on
the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats"
...... Even that wouldn't be enough.
Even if the US government was installing a huge global missile system while simultaneously
building a potent first-strike capability, we'd only have to worry if they also had a history
of attacking many other countries without provocation. Also if their political elite was pushing
for military confrontation with Russia, like proposing to implement no-fly zones in Syria where
Russian planes are flying missions (legally), with some members of the US establishment (people
like Senator McCain) even calling for the downing of Russian planes if needed to accomplish that.
Even in that hypothetical scenario it would only be really really dangerous if in the past some
random senior US general (someone like General Wesley Clark) had already proposed to attack Russian
troops – otherwise we could rely on the sanity of the generals to prevent such insanity.
300 Words I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a
plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia
with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies
just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities
relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone
thinking through what would happen later , or what would be the logical consequence of the
actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia,
for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of
such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously,
it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result.
Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the
end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing.
Read More
" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the
EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist
than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic,
ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement
with Israeli brass.
" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian
Federation."
A truly amazing observation! Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and
therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed
feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with
Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper
level you need to read "200 years together."
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
100 Words I am very much appreciating this article and many comments.
Having some military time, at peace, thankfully, and interest in arcane English words, I am
knowing the diff.between material and materiel, fuze and fuse, etc.
What this article and all of the comments are to lacking is a definition of 'super-fuze'.
I am suspecting that it is just a mis-use of the word 'fuze'.
@Miro23 Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable
to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their
own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.
They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership
of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and
promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at
full $ while they kept their bonuses).
If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Absolutely right.
Read More
Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher
in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied
by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts
the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"
When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting
to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head,
carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher
- Child - British propagandists - New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with
USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.
American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by
numerous venues –
We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long
history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
@annamaria This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes
a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted."
100 Words Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA
DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary
of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation
on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards
towards Russia.
100 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem
to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other
side as well, once in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US?
But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO
or the EU.
comedygold.jpg
NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the
US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration,
imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That
would be awkward.
While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe
), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And
then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not
happening. Read More
This is not Bin Laden on this picture with Brzezinski! It looks like a guy with Pakistani or Indian
paratrooper markings demonstrating the use of Russian RPD machine gun.
But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or
the EU.
comedygold.jpg
NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the
US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration,
imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That
would be awkward.
While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe),
being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then
again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening.
In fact NATO already trains jointly with Israel, and Israel has narrow ties with the EU.
Israel also participates in the European Song Contest.
El Al uses Schiphol, Amsterdam airport, as its main base in Europe.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@Nils If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front
property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and
other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.
Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when
there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by
the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them - you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe,
and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her
off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and
you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by
local animosity - maritime disputes, arming India, etc).
Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation
- called living on the same planet - where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear
fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties
that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.
Unless you don't have nuclear weapons...then your country and lore is up for the taking on
a whim. US is losing military ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the Russian, while USA
is losing economic ground in SE Asia, Africa, South America and North America to the Chinese,
are you saying the super-fuze is a fake news? And the American understood they are being check-mated
by the Russian and Chinese? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@SolontoCroesus Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying
the authors of these dire policy statements:
Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also
a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown --
For 2
Professors, Like Father, Like Son
Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating -- rather, demanding that Georgetown
agree to create-- the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch
Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like
Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who
has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be
carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they
are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing
of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian
Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war
and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Good to know, SolontoCroesus. I'm
sure we'll remember to thank that cuddly pair of parasites when they manage to kill a few tens
of millions of Russians to get their 21st century war groove going. It's really too bad about
Christianity having bred the spirit of vengeance out of the white man. Do Russians thirst for
revenge? Does anyone? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments Randal
,
May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however,
a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack
Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just
happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative
to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking
through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which
they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find
it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they
feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have
led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it
through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end
of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Probably correct,
but as the events surrounding Able Archer in 1983 highlight it's not whether the Yanks have such
intentions that matters, but whether the Russians think they might have them.
Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously,
it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result.
Did anyone think it through?
The ones who thought it through, like Kissinger, cautioned against it and were proved correct.
100 Words
@Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Where did you hear that?
FYI: "Adolph" faced some real threats, not phony ones like we use as excuses to go to war.
Since yer on a first name basis with the dude, you oughta know the truth.
Here's a primer.:
" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese,
is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either
completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin
to ask questions, and searching questions "
I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:
"Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the
Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have
caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779
Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in
Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied
by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts
the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"
When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting
to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head,
carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher
-- Child -- British propagandists -- New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with
USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.
American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous
venues --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r0haVPDAo
We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history:
it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them
to hate, and then kill, another entire population.
"Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long
history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
200 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem
to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other
side as well, once in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US? This post was intended for you, Sebastian:
" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the
EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist
than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic,
ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement
with Israeli brass.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/
" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian
Federation."
A truly amazing observation!
Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and
therefore from immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel
somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians
on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level
you need to read "200 years together." Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however,
a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack
Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just
happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative
to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking
through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which
they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find
it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they
feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have
led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it
through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end
of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. "The most frightening
thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."
Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking
Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse.
Read More
100 Words
@Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but
I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The
Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude
above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable
to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica,
let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. " We've just spent the better part of two decades being
unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."
The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus
making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards it's a snap.
Read More
100 Words
@Max Payne This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things
where they relabel something and remarket it? Not exactly. The super-fuse is an envelope around
the target which is underground, in which the explosion results in the destruction of the target
even if the missile has not hit the ground within the radius of destruction for its potency. The
optimum destruction envelope around the target looks like a church bell, as one would expect.
Therefore, it is in air-burst detonation, but this is not the essence of the super-fusing technique.
An air-burst too early or too late, still does not destroy the target . The essence is
to "save" a missile which would have missed the target and still destroy the underground silo.
A computer on-board the missile decides when to detonate the missile for its existing trajectory.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT \n
400 Words
@El Dato Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
No, it's the prequel:
Mackinder -> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)
Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things - listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan,
Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's
theories.
The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:
"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or
a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson,
a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him
(and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from
Germany's point of view:
It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press ** the British Empire
must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers
and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured
better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged
defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in
the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany - and Germany alone - the "militaristic"
desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating
the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the
"huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction,"
Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status
quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal
of the unalloyed virtue of American life.
{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of
the entire world.)
** Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues –
Read More
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have
no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.
How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence
agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And
if so where is the intelligence value in such?
Are you a movie script writer? Have you ever heard of counter-intelligence? Yes, maybe, never?
Who cares if you "won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding
of the super fuses"? You have made zero contribution to the debate on his topic and I recognise
a troll who is too ready for personal insults from the peak of his/her superior knowledge which
does not exist.
200 Words
@jilles dykstra "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised
from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2's. Iran's underground
silo's are even atomic bomb proof. I do not dispute what you wrote – the Russians would not be
keeping their mobile launchers in plain sight, certainly not parading them around the country
ready for photo- and video-shoot, just like the BUK battery according to the utterly ridiculous
Dutch-lead Investigation of MH17 shoot-down.
However, the issue is always – how much of "own" damage are the US/NATO leaders ready to accept?
Somehow, my feeling is that if the bombs are not falling on Tel Aviv the damage becomes acceptable.
Lately, there has been a very powerful push in the media to disapprove nuclear winter and radiation
damage to the population. Some commenters here are trying the same tack. In other words, if
you are not killed by the nuclear explosion, you will be ok , so say the warmongers, those
who claim the destruction of the planet are fools , again so say the warmongers. I have no
doubt that "someone" is trying to sell the advantages of the nuclear war to the population.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@annamaria "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."
Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking
Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Let us look at it this
way – MAD was a destruction of the two opponents, were the one which strikes first is destroyed
say 60% and the one which was struck first is destroyed 90%. This is looking only at the effect
of the explosions, not at any residual effects.
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have
no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.
How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence
agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And
if so where is the intelligence value in such?
Mackinder ---> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)
Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things -- listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKGSq2rvucQ
In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan,
Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's
theories.
http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/
The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:
"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a
tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson,
a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him
(and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from
Germany's point of view:
It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press** the British Empire
must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers
and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured
better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged
defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the
7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany -- and Germany alone -- the "militaristic"
desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating
the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the
"huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction,"
Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status
quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal
of the unalloyed virtue of American life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaiXs_e-ekI
{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of
the entire world.)
**Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues -- I would recommend
the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all
his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting
lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan,
non-propagandist US historians and their views.
Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives.
Read More
@Wizard of Oz Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling
as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Again your ignorance of history tricks you
into talking nonsense. Read More Anon 2
,
May 6, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT \n
300 Words
@Carlton Meyer What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements
with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching
nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises
to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! A little
history: Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia refused to withdraw from the Kaliningrad
Region in the early 1990s, and to this day it effectively remains a Russian colony. Russia also
initially refused to withdraw its troops from western Poland, and finally did so in stages until
all troops were withdrawn by 1994-5. The conclusion is: Russia cannot be trusted, which, of course,
is something that any child in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine learns
based on the Russian behavior in the last 300 years.
The area known today as Kaliningrad Oblast' was conquered by the (predominantly Germanic) Teutonic
Knights in the 13th century from Sambians (related to Lithuanians) who were then effectively ethnically
cleansed. The upshot is that neither Russia nor Germany can make the original claim to that piece
of land (located between Poland and Lithuania). In a sane and rational world the Kaliningrad region
would be demilitarized and made into an independent country (with Lithuania perhaps having the
greatest claim to the territory) but when was the last time humans behaved rationally in foreign
affairs?
The U.S./NATO has over 300 military installations in Germany, incl. nuclear weapons. It makes
little difference whether missiles are in western Poland or eastern Germany. The territory is
so small that Berlin lies right next to the Polish border. Russia correspondingly placed Iskander
missiles in Kaliningrad which are capable of hitting Berlin. So now we have a balance of terror.
This seems to be the highest solution that humans in our current primitive state of consciousness
are capable of. To quote Trump: sad Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work.
Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the
Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT
reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
100 Words
@Realist " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful
progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."
The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making
billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards...it's a snap. The war in Afghanistan
is all about preventing / disrupting Eurasian integration. Afghanistan is a good spot to do that
as, in addition to being centrally located it is also militarily weak. It borders the important
'Stans into which disruption could exported, and even offers a corridor to China.
The US saw success there, but it's fleeting. It did temporarily disrupt Eurasian integration,
but this is overshadowed by its failure to set up a political structure capable of sustaining,
much less expanding the disruption in its absence. Unless the US invests a politically unacceptable
amount of resources, it's stuck there playing a spoiler's game and will continue to do so until
something happens to oust it. Read More
@Kiza I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall.
I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still
a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand
better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.
Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. thank you for
reading.
"... Unfortunately all of that has been pretty much unknown to most folks for a couple of centuries despite it being known to a few. Thomas Jefferson had a low regard for the press, Mark Twain wrote about it ( from an inside perspective), and Upton Sinclair wrote his excellent The Brass Check detailing the corruption of the press, and I think it's still worth a read. ..."
Might there be a way for some members of the press to become part of
the solution, and no longer part of the problem?
The simple answer would be for an alternative press to gain enough ground
to make the MSM irrelevant. The MSM already has some problems.
It made every effort to get Clinton elected but failed, so the public is
already not taking everything it says at face value, and seem to agree with
Trump in his many speeches when he called them propagandist liars. It can
reach a point that the public rejects everything that comes out of the MSM
(like the last days of the Soviet Union) and it's interesting to read the
WaPo comments section (which gets fairly light censorship) and see the
spreading confusion about mass immigration, ME wars, fake WMD ,
unquestioning support for Israel etc.
I don't think that Loss of Faith is an overnight process. The public
(including myself) has to discard their comfortable memories of what the
Washington Post used to be and face up to the unwelcome fact that "
journalists" like Jennifer Rubin and Anne Applebaum are full on Zionists
(same as the management) and have pushed for every single MENA war.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
Display All Comments
Unfortunately, almost all media-owners have an agenda that overrides
truth - they don't obtain the huge funding that's necessary to build
audience-share if they aren't backed by big money (billionaire investors,
and mega-corporate advertisers) to begin with. Opposing the big money is
a sure pathway to obscurity in the field of 'journalism'; and
'journalism' prizes (especially on international-news or other major
stories) are pig's lipstick, far more than indications of journalistic
competence.
Unfortunately all of that has been pretty much unknown to most folks
for a couple of centuries despite it being known to a few. Thomas Jefferson
had a low regard for the press, Mark Twain wrote about it ( from an inside
perspective), and Upton Sinclair wrote his excellent
The Brass Check
detailing the corruption of the press, and I think it's still worth a read.
This letter is amazing too.
I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow
citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they
have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (14 June 1807)
A quarter of a million Americans buy [The New York Times] every day,
and form their whole view of life from its columns. And never a day out
of more than ten thousand days that this newspaper has not subtly and
cunningly distorted the news of the world in the interest of special
privilege.
- UPTON SINCLAIR, THE CRIMES OF THE "TIMES" A Test of Newspaper
Decency,
1921
(Pamphlet published by Sinclair)
It's a wonder that corporate media ever had a grain of credibility.
If a person isn't skeptical of his own beliefs, then he becomes a
waste-dump of falsehoods, instead of an accumulator of truths - a truly
(i.e., truthfully) educated person.
On that basis, I estimate there may be 2 or 3 at most, educated people in
America, land of the gulls and home of the dupes.
Another Bingo!
Because, to trust 'authority' (note: this refers to fake authorities,
not to methodologically careful scientific research)
Because, to trust 'authority' (note: this refers to fake authorities,
not to methodologically careful scientific research) is to invite fascist
rule, aggressive wars, and mass-exploitation.
Getting to the truth, and staying with it, requires constant vigilance
and a constantly open mind to the possibility that there are falsehoods
in one's own beliefs. If a person isn't skeptical of his own beliefs,
then he becomes a waste-dump of falsehoods, instead of an accumulator of
truths - a truly (i.e., truthfully) educated person. Democracy is thus
virtually impossible in America
In a very well-worded way you clarify how democracy and human nature
aren't compatible, then you conclude that "Democracy is virtually impossible
in America".
No, it is virtually impossible wherever there are humans. Except for brief
periods when the force of opposite teams competing for power are
approximately equal (and then people like "journalists" "intellectuals"
"bankers" and other public-opinion and policy-determiners part equally
between the two sides).
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
Display All Comments
sebastian puettmann
,
January 20, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT \n
100 Words
The author makes a good case against the establishment.
To make things short,
Americans must chose now:
Continue the empire and lose their own country.
Or end American hegemony and survive as a culture.
America has given the world great values.
It'd be a shame if they were to lose in one wrong play at the 'great game'.
Get your army home and let the free market provide security in foreign
markets.
Nice article
– that begins to explain just how
completely we American People are Brainwashed. My fellow American Citizens
are only beginning to have a clue as to how they are controlled – by means
of misinformation and the 'carrot and the stick.'
Zuesse pithily explains – the costs of resistance
:
"Journalism - especially about important matters - is not a profession.
It's a calling. Or else, if it's not a calling, then it is public relations;
it is propaganda, "PR" - done for the purpose of receiving pay, not really
for the purpose of conveying truth."
"The employees are purely megaphones for their boss's views. That's what
they were hired to be, and that's what they are if they succeed in their
profession and rise up the career-ladder in it. Anything that a staff
journalist writes (or allows to be published, if that person is an editor)
contradicting the owner's views, counts against that employee, and increases
his/her likelihood of being eliminated, or at least of being denied a
deserved promotion (because not doing the person's job for the employer)."
Even such a wealthy and powerful man as
Mel Gibson
, is still
trying to return to Hollywood (from where he has been banned – under penalty
of ???).
Today we will view
Hollywood Obomber
being replaced by another
frontman ("purely megaphones for their boss's views"), as explained by
Zuesse; he will be replaced by
Casino Trump
, who was chosen by the
Oligarchs – in preference to a clearly mentally (and physically?) ill
Killery Clinton
.
A mid level crook is thrown the title of 'President.' An individual who
has twice declared bankruptcy, and each time returned to action with more
$wealth, than ever, and no political history whatever, attains office in
preference to a vicious mass murdering war criminal. Call that progress if
you will. However, the scum allowed to become the frontrunners (thanks to
the Mainstream Media brainwashing of our American citizens), have never been
less human, or morally qualified to represent the people.
This political pattern of the
Oligarch controllers
, Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, Duponts, Soros, et. al., choosing the least moral, the least
humans to become their "public relations" tools has continued, without
letup, from the hour after the murder of our last Constitutional President,
John F.Kennedy
, and the Coup D'etat against our beloved American
Republic (in the first successful -Modern Arab Spring).
In 2017, the current political pattern
reminds one of Roman
Emperor
Caligula
's placing of his favorite Horse, in the Roman
Senate. And the Roman Senators, (possibly all corrupted by AIPAC), continued
their deliberations; they even allowrd the Horse to vote. There is no
evidence that Caligula's Horse voted any less intelligently than our
Prostituted Congress. Indeed, there is no evidence that Caligula descended
to the low level of anti-democratic or any anti-human depravity, so common
in modern Politics.
Freedom is, indeed, not Free
We either
Restore our Beloved Democratic Republic
, or we wallow in
depraved servility, as slaves, but not as Free Humans.
Unfortunately, almost all media-owners have an agenda that overrides
truth - they don't obtain the huge funding that's necessary to build
audience-share if they aren't backed by big money (billionaire investors,
and mega-corporate advertisers) to begin with. Opposing the big money is
a sure pathway to obscurity in the field of 'journalism'; and
'journalism' prizes (especially on international-news or other major
stories) are pig's lipstick, far more than indications of journalistic
competence.
Unfortunately all of that has been pretty much unknown to most folks for a
couple of centuries despite it being known to a few. Thomas Jefferson had a
low regard for the press, Mark Twain wrote about it ( from an inside
perspective), and Upton Sinclair wrote his excellent
The Brass Check
detailing the corruption of the press, and I think it's still worth a read.
This letter is amazing too.
I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow
citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they
have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (14 June 1807)
A quarter of a million Americans buy [The New York Times] every day, and
form their whole view of life from its columns. And never a day out of
more than ten thousand days that this newspaper has not subtly and
cunningly distorted the news of the world in the interest of special
privilege.
- UPTON SINCLAIR, THE CRIMES OF THE "TIMES" A Test of Newspaper
Decency,
1921
(Pamphlet published by Sinclair)
It's a wonder that corporate media ever had a grain of credibility.
Where do people get their faith?
They get it in elementary school, and in the 'news'media (which inundate
their parents). It's continued in subsequent 'education', which doesn't tell
them that what they had learned earlier was the aristocracy's lies about
their country and its history. Especially at the prestigious universities,
the professors occupy seats that are endowed by the aristocracy, for the
aristocracy. In other words: we are surrounded with it, from birth.
Read More
Astuteobservor II
,
January 20, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT \n
100 Words
the last hurrah was the watergate :/ after that, it was deemed too
dangerous. for profit news = death of journalism. cnn didn't help much.
foxnews was the the original fake news
even 60 minutes became shit. I was a huge fan of charlie rose, but then I
watched the interview with putin.
100 Words
All journalism is propaganda for one side or another.
The only way to describe a human event without a viewpoint is to write a
police report.
"Subject proceeded south on Quincy for 3.7 miles at 83 miles per hour.
Subject halted after colliding with parked car at Quincy and 14th. Subject
exited car and officer pursued on foot."
This isn't journalism, it's measurement.
The Onion's "autistic reporter" parody also illustrates TV journalism
without a human viewpoint.
Journalism - especially about important matters - is not a profession.
It's a calling. Or else, if it's not a calling, then it is public
relations; it is propaganda.
200 Words
You lost me at the fake coup news. If the EU association would have cost
Ukraine 160 billion, why didn't Yanokovich simply calla press conference and
detail the problem to the Ukrainian people? The fact is, he didn't. he
simply turned to Russia because he liked the idea of an association with
Russia better because that's where his sympathies lay.
His murderous
reaction to the Maidan protesters simply cooked his goose. When he realized
he would be brought to book for the killings he ordered, he ran for his
buddy Putin's protection. Same with the Berkut that carried out the murders.
He was then removed from office by the parliament under a constitutional
proceeding.
How do you know Crimea wanted to be a Russian province again? The
referendum? That was fake and held under the guns of the Russian Army after
thousands had been imported, allowing the Russian Army to vote and
suppressing the vote of the natives, particularly of the Crimean Tatars.
100 Words
Excellent.
Norman Solomon wrote about this problem in his book "War Made Easy, How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media
critic, and author Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to
probe and scrutinize the key "perception management" techniques that have
played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in recent decades.//
It's all about managing and shaping perception, not news.
– The CNN president recently: "One of the things I think this administration
hasn't figured out yet is that there's only one television network that is
seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran and
Damascus - and that's CNN," Zucker said. "The perception of Donald Trump in
capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to
have an adversarial relationship with that network is a mistake."
Read More
Inertiller
,
January 20, 2017 at 6:24 pm GMT \n
@Astuteobservor II
the last hurrah was the watergate :/ after that, it was deemed too
dangerous. for profit news = death of journalism. cnn didn't help much.
foxnews was the the original fake news :) even 60 minutes became shit. I was
a huge fan of charlie rose, but then I watched the interview with putin.
took the last 3 decades to kill off news, to get to what we have now,
propaganda and pr outlets.
False – Watergate was at best a distraction, more technically a psyop. The
history of the United States is a press that claims to be free, but is
probably the most effective military weapon available. 1973, otherwise, was
an especially signifigant year.
Read More
Intelligent Dasein
,
Website
January 20, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT \n
@Don Bacon
Excellent.
Norman Solomon wrote about this problem in his book "War Made Easy, How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media
critic, and author Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to
probe and scrutinize the key "perception management" techniques that have
played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in recent decades.//
It's all about managing and shaping perception, not news.
-- The CNN president recently: "One of the things I think this
administration hasn't figured out yet is that there's only one television
network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad,
Tehran and Damascus - and that's CNN," Zucker said. "The perception of
Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN.
Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a
mistake."
Donald Trump can block CNN's broadcasts, occupy and shut down their studios,
seize their property, and blow their satellites out of the sky if he wants
to. We're playing the game on a new level now, and Zucker can shove up his
megaphone.
Read More
Astuteobservor II
,
January 20, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT \n
@Intelligent Dasein
Donald Trump can block CNN's broadcasts, occupy and shut down their studios,
seize their property, and blow their satellites out of the sky if he wants
to. We're playing the game on a new level now, and Zucker can shove up his
megaphone.
Not to mention the Donald has the power to seize ALL of Zucker's assets and
throw him in Guantanamo Bay.
They get it in elementary school, and in the 'news'media (which
inundate their parents). It's continued in subsequent 'education', which
doesn't tell them that what they had learned earlier was the
aristocracy's lies about their country and its history. Especially at the
prestigious universities, the professors occupy seats that are endowed by
the aristocracy, for the aristocracy. In other words: we are surrounded
with it, from birth.
The birth of our species as we use to see it, you mean.
Language and deception were born the same day.
So did power hierarchy and society.
1. Break up the big media/industrial
cartels. It was of course Bill Clinton – who gave us NAFTA and the repeal of
Glass Steagall, who allowed the news media to consolidate. So now we have
the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, who has many other interests than
journalism, and who can easily subsidize the Post from his other enterprises
and use the Post to push his own agenda. A newspaper that was not owned by a
parent entity with other interests MIGHT possibly be more focused on
journalism.
2. In general you can only get honest reporting in a prosperous society
with a tight labor market. Then, if a talented reporter is fired, the
company loses a hard-to-replace talent and the reporter easily finds another
good job, because talented people are in short supply. But with a flooded
labor market, even talented people can be easily replaced, being fired is a
de-facto sentence of lifetime poverty, and only the occasional saint will
take a stand on principle. That's why in poor countries there is always
horrible sycophancy and nepotism. And, aside from the direct profits of
cheap labor, this is another reason that the rich like cheap labor, because
it gives them more social power. If we limited immigration to a more modest
level, and stopped bleeding main street and feeding Wall Street and
pointless foreign wars, and created a tight labor market where companies
were desperate to find qualified people and qualified people had their pick
of jobs, I think a lot of these issues might be reduced.
Read More
anonymous
,
January 21, 2017 at 2:25 am GMT \n
200 Words
his actual actions did nothing to punish) increased economic
inequality, flatlined wages, and soaring poverty with lots of new
burger-flipping jobs
Listening to NPR today the panelists were cooing that Obama was handing
over a greatly improving economy and that unemployment was a mere 4.5% and
so on. Huh, that's not what I see daily, homelessness and panhandling like
never before all over the place. Service jobs, 'burger-flipping', are pretty
much it for a lot of people and don't pay enough for them to pay rent let
alone make any plans for the future. What, did Ceausescu's propaganda team
find work over here? Ideological blindness or paid to lie, who can tell the
difference? It seems the gap between the narratives coming out of the street
corner loudspeakers and observed reality is getting more blatant in recent
years. It strikes me that it represents something of an end stage of control
through deceit and manipulation. Next step will be recourse to coercion and
force.
Obama was merely a more-articulate and cunning version of Bush, in
blackface
1. Break up the big media/industrial cartels. It was of course Bill Clinton
- who gave us NAFTA and the repeal of Glass Steagall, who allowed the news
media to consolidate. So now we have the Washington Post, owned by Jeff
Bezos, who has many other interests than journalism, and who can easily
subsidize the Post from his other enterprises and use the Post to push his
own agenda. A newspaper that was not owned by a parent entity with other
interests MIGHT possibly be more focused on journalism.
2. In general you can only get honest reporting in a prosperous society with
a tight labor market. Then, if a talented reporter is fired, the company
loses a hard-to-replace talent and the reporter easily finds another good
job, because talented people are in short supply. But with a flooded labor
market, even talented people can be easily replaced, being fired is a
de-facto sentence of lifetime poverty, and only the occasional saint will
take a stand on principle. That's why in poor countries there is always
horrible sycophancy and nepotism. And, aside from the direct profits of
cheap labor, this is another reason that the rich like cheap labor, because
it gives them more social power. If we limited immigration to a more modest
level, and stopped bleeding main street and feeding Wall Street and
pointless foreign wars, and created a tight labor market where companies
were desperate to find qualified people and qualified people had their pick
of jobs, I think a lot of these issues might be reduced.
"In general you can only get honest reporting in a prosperous society with a
tight labor market."
@Don Bacon
Excellent.
Norman Solomon wrote about this problem in his book "War Made Easy, How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media
critic, and author Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to
probe and scrutinize the key "perception management" techniques that have
played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in recent decades.//
It's all about managing and shaping perception, not news.
-- The CNN president recently: "One of the things I think this
administration hasn't figured out yet is that there's only one television
network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad,
Tehran and Damascus - and that's CNN," Zucker said. "The perception of
Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN.
Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a
mistake."
"One of the things I think this administration hasn't figured out yet is
that there's only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow,
Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus - and that's CNN,"
LOL. Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Baghdad, etc are going to trust CNN?
his actual actions did nothing to punish) increased economic inequality,
flatlined wages, and soaring poverty with lots of new burger-flipping
jobs
Listening to NPR today the panelists were cooing that Obama was handing over
a greatly improving economy and that unemployment was a mere 4.5% and so on.
Huh, that's not what I see daily, homelessness and panhandling like never
before all over the place. Service jobs, 'burger-flipping', are pretty much
it for a lot of people and don't pay enough for them to pay rent let alone
make any plans for the future. What, did Ceausescu's propaganda team find
work over here? Ideological blindness or paid to lie, who can tell the
difference? It seems the gap between the narratives coming out of the street
corner loudspeakers and observed reality is getting more blatant in recent
years. It strikes me that it represents something of an end stage of control
through deceit and manipulation. Next step will be recourse to coercion and
force.
Obama was merely a more-articulate and cunning version of Bush, in
blackface
200 Words
@Eric Zuesse
They get it in elementary school, and in the 'news'media (which inundate
their parents). It's continued in subsequent 'education', which doesn't tell
them that what they had learned earlier was the aristocracy's lies about
their country and its history. Especially at the prestigious universities,
the professors occupy seats that are endowed by the aristocracy, for the
aristocracy. In other words: we are surrounded with it, from birth.
Yup, it's the human condition, hence my question regarding faith.
You may
find this true today as well.
As a 16 year old, with 2 years of formal schooling ending at the age
of 10, Benjamin Franklin wrote this. Note the date:
I reflected in my Mind on the extream Folly of those Parents, who,
blind to their Childrens Dulness, and insensible of the Solidity of their
Skulls, because they think their Purses can afford it, will needs send
them to the Temple of Learning, where, for want of a suitable Genius,
they learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely, and enter
a Room genteely, (which might as well be acquir'd at a Dancing-School,)
and from whence they return, after Abundance of Trouble and Charge, as
great Blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.
I related my Dream with all its Particulars [to a friend], and he,
without much Study, presently interpreted it, assuring me, That it was a
lively Representation of HARVARD COLLEGE, Etcetera.
I remain, Sir,
Your Humble Servant,
SILENCE DOGOOD.
@Quartermaster
You lost me at the fake coup news. If the EU association would have cost
Ukraine 160 billion, why didn't Yanokovich simply calla press conference and
detail the problem to the Ukrainian people? The fact is, he didn't. he
simply turned to Russia because he liked the idea of an association with
Russia better because that's where his sympathies lay.
His murderous reaction to the Maidan protesters simply cooked his goose.
When he realized he would be brought to book for the killings he ordered, he
ran for his buddy Putin's protection. Same with the Berkut that carried out
the murders. He was then removed from office by the parliament under a
constitutional proceeding.
How do you know Crimea wanted to be a Russian province again? The
referendum? That was fake and held under the guns of the Russian Army after
thousands had been imported, allowing the Russian Army to vote and
suppressing the vote of the natives, particularly of the Crimean Tatars.
100 Words
@Don Bacon
Excellent.
Norman Solomon wrote about this problem in his book "War Made Easy, How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media
critic, and author Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to
probe and scrutinize the key "perception management" techniques that have
played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in recent decades.//
It's all about managing and shaping perception, not news.
-- The CNN president recently: "One of the things I think this
administration hasn't figured out yet is that there's only one television
network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad,
Tehran and Damascus - and that's CNN," Zucker said. "The perception of
Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN.
Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a
mistake."
I think he meant to say there is only one US network in those countries. The
way he said it, it would be just as easy to say that RT is the only network
in the USA, and that that network is what forms American's perceptions of
Vladimir Putin. Typical news man putting his spin on things. Fake news.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
DB Cooper
,
January 21, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT \n
Opposing the big money is a sure pathway to obscurity in the field of
'journalism'; and 'journalism' prizes (especially on international-news
or other major stories) are pig's lipstick
100 Words
@Quartermaster
You lost me at the fake coup news. If the EU association would have cost
Ukraine 160 billion, why didn't Yanokovich simply calla press conference and
detail the problem to the Ukrainian people? The fact is, he didn't. he
simply turned to Russia because he liked the idea of an association with
Russia better because that's where his sympathies lay.
His murderous reaction to the Maidan protesters simply cooked his goose.
When he realized he would be brought to book for the killings he ordered, he
ran for his buddy Putin's protection. Same with the Berkut that carried out
the murders. He was then removed from office by the parliament under a
constitutional proceeding.
How do you know Crimea wanted to be a Russian province again? The
referendum? That was fake and held under the guns of the Russian Army after
thousands had been imported, allowing the Russian Army to vote and
suppressing the vote of the natives, particularly of the Crimean Tatars.
You people need to quit spreading Putin's lies.
I believe you are misinformed about the validity of the Crimean referendum.
". . . an interesting study, 'The Socio-Political Sentiments in Crimea,' was
released by the Ukrainian branch of GfK, the well-known German social
research organization, as part of the Free Crimea initiative. Intriguingly,
the primary objectives of this project, launched with the support of the
governmental Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, were to "debunk aggressive
Russian propaganda" and to 'reintegrate Crimea into Ukraine.' Thus the
researchers can hardly be suspected of being Russian sympathizers. So let's
take a look at the results."
"... More Americans are becoming aware and demanding action, who are demeaned as crazy "truthers", which now include two former members of our government's official 9-11 Commission once tasked with investigating these crimes. ..."
None of these were exposed via "Fact check" stories afterwards. One Obama
lie was this:
"I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban
people, shut down Iran's nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, and
take out the mastermind of 9/11″
Most experts agree that the Osama Bin Laden killing story is false, but
there is no disagreement that OBL was not the 9-11 mastermind. He played no
role at all, but was only said to have inspired the attack by our FBI. For
those confused by our corporate media and their spokesmen like B. Obama,
here is something from my blog:
Here is a summary of events for those confused by American corporate
media. Al Qaeda is not an organization. It is a CIA computer database of
armed Arab nationalists who violently oppose western domination of the Arab
world. (Al Qaeda is Arabic for database.) This database was established by
the CIA in the 1980s when our CIA trained and armed Arabs to fight the
Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was never an
official leader since it has never been a real organization, although he did
lead a large group of Arab nationalists who lived in Afghanistan.
OBL had nothing to do with 9-11, he didn't even know about it until it
was reported in the media. He was never formally accused of the attacks
because there is zero evidence. OBL was a wealthy Saudi who is said to have
inspired the attacks. Our government blamed a Kuwaiti, Khalid Shaikh
Mohammad (pictured), and a dozen Saudis who died in the airplanes. These
persons had never been to Afghanistan and are said to have planned and
trained for the attacks in the Philippines, Germany, and the USA. Then why
was Afghanistan invaded, and later Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and
Yemen? But we did not invade Saudi Arabia! Instead, recall that days after
9-11 several jets from our federal Justice Department rounded up Saudi
suspects in the USA and flew them home before FBI agents could ask them
questions.
All this explains why the accused mastermind of the attacks, Khalid
Shaikh Mohammad, has yet to go to trial almost 16 years since 9-11! He has
not been allowed to speak to anyone outside the CIA Even the 9-11
Commission was not allowed to interview him. The U.S. military set up a
kangaroo court at Gitmo to hold a trial many years ago, but brave military
defense lawyers keep causing delays by insisting on a fair trial. It seems
evidence is so "sensitive" that our CIA does not want it revealed. even in a
secret military court. Whenever documents are requested by the defense, some
are destroyed instead! This included all the CIA interrogations of the
accused!
Our media propaganda is so prevalent that nearly all Americans think OBL
was the 9-11 mastermind, and since he is dead the case is closed. However,
there is zero evidence of his involvement, something our government has long
acknowledged. Americans watched thousands of hours of television coverage of
the 9-11 attacks. Ask one if they think the accused mastermind of the
attacks should be put on trial, and they'll have no idea what you are
talking about.
More Americans are becoming aware and demanding action,
who are demeaned as crazy "truthers", which now include two former members
of our government's official 9-11 Commission once tasked with investigating
these crimes.
Billionaire businessman
Marc Cuban
insists
that the H-1B visa racket is a
feature of the vaunted American free market.
This is nonsense on stilts. It can't go
unchallenged.
Another
billionaire, our president, has
ordered
that the H-1B program be reformed.
This, too, is disappointing. You'll see why.
First, let's
correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free
economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets
are intertwined. Trade, including trade in
labor, is not free; it's regulated to the hilt.
If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an
example of a fascistic government-business
cartel in operation.
The H-1B
permit, in particular, is part of that
state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B
hogs-Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian
firms), Microsoft, and Intel-import labor with
what are grants of government privilege. Duly,
the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like
incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do
they get to replace the American worker, but
they get to do so at his expense.
Here's how:
Globally, a
series of sordid liaisons ensures that American
workers are left high and dry. Through the
programs of the International Trade
Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the
International Monetary Fund, and other
oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker
is forced to subsidize and underwrite the
investment risks of the very corporations that
have given him the boot.
Domestically,
the fascistic partnership with the State amounts
to a subsidy to business at the expense of the
taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic
welfare state externalize their employment costs
onto the taxpayers.
So while
public property is property funded by taxpayers
through expropriated taxes; belongs to
taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit-at
least one million additional immigrants a year,
including recipients of the H-1B visa, are
allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported
infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival
avails himself of public works such as roads,
hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and
welfare.
Does this
epitomize the classical liberal idea of
laissez faire
?
Moreover,
chain migration or family unification means
every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an
entire tribe. The initial entrant-the meal
ticket-will pay his way. The honor system not
being an especially strong value in the Third
World, the rest of the clan will be America's
problem. More often than not, chain-migration
entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.
Spreading like
gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic
population growth is detrimental to all
ecosystems: natural, social and political.
Take Seattle
and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015
and 2016, the area was inundated with "86,320
new residents, marking it the region's biggest
population gains this century. Fueled in large
part by the technology industry, an average of
236 people is moving to the Seattle area each
day,"
reported
Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our
local fish-wrapper-in my case, parrot-cage
liner-have discharged their journalistic duties
by inviting readers to "share" their traffic-jam
stories.)
Never as dumb
as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates,
Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg and Marc Cuban
are certainly as detached.
Barricaded in
their obscenely lavish compounds-from the
comfort of their monster mansions-these social
engineers don't experience the "environmental
impacts of rapid urban expansion"; the
destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland;
the decrease in the quality of the water we
drink and air we breathe, the increase in
traffic and traffic accidents, air pollution,
the cellblock-like housing erected to
accommodate their imported I.T. workers and
extended families, the delicate bouquet of amped
up waste management and associated seepages.
For locals,
this lamentable state means an inability to
afford homes in a market in which property
prices have been artificially inflated. Young
couples lineup to view tiny apartments. They
dream of that picket fence no more. (And our
"stupid leaders," to quote the president before
he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are
so low!)
In a true free
market, absent the protectionist state,
corporate employers would be accountable to the
community, and would be wary of the strife and
lowered productivity brought about by a
multiethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All
the more so when a foreign workforce moves into
residential areas almost overnight as has
happened in Seattle and its surrounds.
Alas, since
the
high-tech traitors
can externalize their
employment costs on to the community; because
corporations are subsidized at every turn by
their victims-they need not bring in the best.
Cuban thinks
they do. High tech needs to be able to "search
the world for the best applicants," he
burbled
to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Yet more crap.
Why doesn't
the president know that the H-1B visa category
is not a special visa for highly skilled
individuals, but goes mostly to average workers?
"Indian business-process outsourcing companies,
which predominantly provide technology support
to corporate back offices," by
the Economist's accounting.
Overall, the
work done by the H1-B intake does not require
independent judgment, critical reasoning or
higher-order thinking. "Average workers;
ordinary talent doing ordinary work," attest the
experts who've been studying this intake for
years. The master's degree is the exception
within the H1-B visa category.
More
significant: THERE IS a visa category that is
reserved exclusively for individuals with
extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know,
because the principal sponsor in our family
received this visa. I first
wrote
about the visa that doesn't displace
ordinary Americans
in 2008
:
It's the O-1
visa.
"Extraordinary
ability in the fields of science, education,
business or athletics,"
states
the Department of Homeland Security,
"means a level of expertise indicating that the
person is one of the small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."
Most
significant:
There is no cap on the number
of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this
limited pool of talent is unlimited.
My point
vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs
are forever claiming that they are desperate for
talent. In reality, they have unlimited access
to individuals with unique abilities through the
open-ended O-1 visa program.
There is no
limit to the number of geniuses American
companies can import.
Theoretically,
the H-1B program could be completely abolished
and all needed Einsteins imported through the
O-1 program. (Why, even future first ladies
would stand a chance under the business category
of the O-1A visa, as a wealth-generating
supermodel could certainly qualify.)
Now you
understand my disappointment. In his
April 18 Executive Order,
President Trump
promised to merely reform a program that needs
abolishing. That is if "Hire American" means
anything to anybody anymore.
"... Map 1: The 2014 election–İhsanoğlu, the Kemalist wins the blue metro regions, Erdoğan wins the yellow rural regions, and Kurdish candidate wins the purple Kurdish regions: ..."
"... Map 2: The birth rate–low in the metropolitan, Europeanized regions, higher as you go east into the heartland. Demography is destiny–especially electoral destiny. ..."
"... Map 3: The referendum results. Steyn writes "The Kurdish south-east, the old secular Rumelian west – and in between the vast green carpet of a new post-Kemalist caliphate:" ..."
"... The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America ..."
"... John Derbyshire [ ..."
"... email him ..."
"... incredible amount ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... fired him. ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He's had two books published by VDARE.com: ..."
Turkish President,
Recep Erdoğan
won his referendum by a narrow margin last weekend, so
Turkish politics will move off in the general direction of
Venezuela
, though with an Islamic flavor-
Erdoğan
is a devout Muslim.
I
respect the Turks for having done a great and remarkable thing in a short time.
The old
Ottoman Empire
was a classic instance of
imperial-bureaucratic despotism:
a permanent small ruling class enforcing a
state religion while they tax-farmed a passive peasantry with no property
rights-what Karl Marx called "
The
Asiatic Mode of Production
."
It
was a tremendous revolution. And unlike most revolutions, it was revolutionary
in a positive direction. It once fired me up with the hope that, if Turkey
could accomplish such a transformation, then perhaps other old
imperial-despotic nations could too.
Nothing is impossible when History means
business. The Turks passed from a very "pure" form of oriental despotism to
republican liberty, or a fair approximation of it, in 20 years. No one
should think that the Chinese, with their great resources of national pride
and historical consciousness, cannot pull off the same trick.
Now, 28 years later, that looks naïvely
Whiggish
. It turns out that when History means business, the business it
means is sometimes a 180-degree turn back to the past.
In
the commentary on Turkey's referendum vote, Mark Steyn's column
Who Lost Turkey? (Revisited)
stands out. Mark returns to the theme
he worked over in his 2006 best-seller
America Alone
,
that demography is destiny. He explains
that the old despotic-Islamist order was not vanquished-only
relegated to the boondocks
. The Turks of the cities, especially in the
Europe-facing
western part of Turkey, were keen to modernize; the peasants
of the hinterland, not so much.
But the peasants had an advantage over the
urban Turks: their birth-rate. Turkish nationalism simply out-bred globalism.
Turkish Islamism
out-bred secularism
. It took 94 years. But in the long run, yes, demography
is destiny.
Mark supports his argument with some very
cool maps:
Map 1: The 2014 election–İhsanoğlu, the
Kemalist wins the blue metro regions, Erdoğan wins the yellow rural regions,
and Kurdish candidate wins the purple Kurdish regions:
Map 2: The birth rate–low in the
metropolitan, Europeanized regions, higher as you go east into the heartland.
Demography is destiny–especially electoral destiny.
Map 3: The
referendum
results. Steyn writes "The Kurdish south-east, the old secular
Rumelian west – and in between the vast green carpet of a new post-Kemalist
caliphate:"
I caught a flavor of it in its Turkish form
twenty years ago. I was working for an investment bank. One of my colleagues
was a Jew from Turkey. I thought this was interesting. What's it like, I asked
him, being Jewish in Turkey? He said it was all right, he'd never had any
trouble.
The spirit of an open and tolerant society,
free inquiry, the disinterested pursuit of truth, is under mortal threat here
as well as in Turkey. The big difference: here, the threat comes from the top,
from our
elites
at
places
like
Pomona College.
In Turkey, it comes from below.
What accounts for the difference? My guess
would center on two factors.
First factor: religion. Christianity, leaving
aside occasional episodes like the Counter-Reformation, has never been much of
a hindrance to the development of open societies or modernism. The
mid-20th-century United States was very religious; but we
put men on the Moon.
Heck,
even the astronauts were religious
.
Islam is a
different story
. The metaphysics of Islam is occasionalist: Whatever is, is
good, because God wills it. Where that kind of thinking takes hold you end up
with a stifling obscurantism, hostile to all openness and free inquiry.
Second factor: mass immigration. In Western
countries, the hostility of urban elites towards their countries' native
Deplorables
has expressed itself most noticeably in
policies of mass immigration.
In
Western countries the elites, rather than have those horrid white proles doing
the grunt work for them, have imported great masses of Third Worlders. These
immigrants are cheaper; and, in the first generation at least, they are more
obedient and harder-working. Their exoticism also plays into the modernist
esthetic, which, as
Eric Kaufmann
says in his book
The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America
, "values the new and
different."
So
we
have enstupidation, the
killing off of free inquiry, from the top down,
urban elites
imposing their dogma on the rest of us, in alliance with their
Third World clients.
Turks
are getting it from the bottom up, the
underclass in the hinterlands demanding a new Sultanate under institutionalized
Islam.
ORDER IT NOW
Might it be that Peak Reason has come and
gone, reaching its highest point sometime round about 1960? That
Atatürk's
modern, secular republic was carried aloft on that rising wave,
as were our own great achievements through the middle of the last century? And
that the tide is now receding?
"... In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it. As Michael Lind writes: ..."
"... At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would be devastating. ..."
"... As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions of grandeur". ..."
There is a popular point of view in some of Russia's political circles, especially among those who
profess monarchist views and cling to a famous meme of 1913 Tsarist Russia development statistics,
that WW I was started by Germany to forestall Russia's industrial development which would inevitably
challenge Germany's plans on domination of Europe. A somewhat similar argument could be made for
the WW II, but, in general, preventive wars are nothing new in human history. While "preventive"
argument may or may not be a valid one regarding WW I, there is no doubt that it could be used, among
others, when explaining the origins of a war.
A classic example of such "preventive" war is, of course, US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the
mayhem which ensued there when US, as was stated then, "prevented" Saddam from obtaining Weapons
of Mass Destruction, that is nuclear weapons, which, of course, he never had and wasn't intent on
obtaining . It is becoming increasingly clear that "preventive war" has become a preferred instrument
in the hands of Washington establishment, be it Iraq, Libya or Syria.
But what about Russia, one may ask, or China. Are "preventive wars" against them possible? Taken
at face value the question may seem strange-both China, and especially Russia are nuclear armed states
which can defend themselves. They do have deterrents and that supposedly should stop any attempt
on any kind of war on them. This all is true but only so far. One may consider the current geopolitical
situation in which China has all but created a new alternative economic power pole , and in which
the US finds herself increasingly in the position of the still extremely important but second and,
eventually, even third place player in Eurasian economic development. The United States doesn't like
being in second and doesn't take such a reality kindly.
But for Washington, whose political discourse is based on American exceptionalism and foreign
policy now is defined completely in terms of military power, emergence of a "peer" military power
is absolutely unacceptable. While China is an economic giant and is now arguably the largest economy
in the world, she still has a long way to go until she becomes a true "peer" to the United States
militarily. This is not the case with Russia. It becomes also true when one begins to look at doctrinal
and technological developments both in the US and Russia. The contrast is startling, even if one
considers a very dubious US intelligence analysis on Russia .
Russia's military doctrine and posture are explicitly defensive. Power Projection in Russian strategic
considerations is secondary, if not tertiary, to the defense of Russia proper and her immediate geographic
vicinity which can roughly be defined as about 80-85% of territory of the former USSR. This is not
the case with the United States who is a consummate expeditionary power and fights wars not on
own territory, and whose population and political elites are not conditioned by continental warfare.
Arthur J. Alexander in his "
Decision Making In Soviet Weapons Procurement " came up with quantification of what he called
"classes of forces" (or constants) influencing aggregate defense expenditures for USSR. This quantification
remains virtually unchanged for modern day Russia. To quote Alexander, two of the most "heavy" constants
he mentions are: "History, culture and values–40-50 percent. International environment, threat
and internal capabilities–10-30 percent" . Taken by their maxima, 50+30=80%, we get the picture.
80% of Russia's military expenditures are dictated by real military threats, which were, time after
time over centuries, realized for Russia and resulted in the destruction and human losses on a scale
incomprehensible for people who write US military doctrines and national security strategies. This
is especially true for Neocon "strategists" who have a very vague understanding of the nature and
application of military power-expeditionary warfare simply does not provide a proper angle on the
issues of actual defense. The nation whose 20 th Century losses due to wars from WW I,
to Civil War to WW II number roughly in 40-45 million range, would certainly try to not repeat such
ordeals. Even famous Russophobe and falsifier, Richard Pipes, was forced to admit that:
Such figures are beyond the comprehension of most Americans. But clearly a country must define
"unacceptable damage" differently from the United States which has known no famines or purges,
and whose deaths from all the wars waged since 1775 are estimated at 650,000-fewer casualties
than Russia suffered in the 900-day siege of Leningrad in World War II alone. Such a country (Russia)
tends also to assess the rewards of defense in much more realistic terms.
In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological
pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help
to implement it. As Michael Lind writes:
The possibility of military defeat and invasion are usually left out of discussion .in the
United states and Britain. The United States, if one discounts Pearl Harbor has not suffered a
serious invasion from 1812; Britain, though it has been bombed from the air in the (20th century),
has been free from foreign invasion even longer .Elsewhere in the world, political elites cannot
as easily separate foreign policy and economics.
Russia lives under these pressures constantly and, in fact, Russians as ethnos were formed and
defined by warfare. Russia is also defined by her weapons and it is here where we may start looking
for one of the most important rationales for anti-Russian hysteria in Washington which have proceeded
unabated sincethe return of Crimea in 2014, in reality even earlier.
The Western analytical and expert community failed utterly in assessing Russia's both economic
and, as a consequence, military potential. The problem here is not with Russia, which offers unprecedented
access to all kinds of foreigners, from businessmen and tourists to political and intelligence (overt
and covert) professionals. The problem is with Western view of Russia which as late as three years
ago was completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities. That is the reality
not defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices.
It took a complete and embarrassing failure of the West's economic sanctions on Russia to recognize
that the actual size of Russia's economy is about that of Germany, if not larger, and that Russia
was defining herself in terms of enclosed technological cycles, localization and manufacturing long
before she was forced to engage in the war in Georgia in 2008. Very few people realistically care
about Russia's Stock Market, the financial markets of Germany are on the order of magnitude larger,
but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can. Germany
doesn't have a space industry, Russia does. The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics
industry and her military-industrial complex which dwarfs that of any "economic" competitor Western
"economists" always try to compare Russia to, with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk,
not quality, only. Third or Second World economies do not produce such weapons as Borey-class strategic
missile submarines or SU-35 fighter jets, they also do not build space-stations and operate the only
global alternative to US GPS, GLONASS system.
Whether this lesson will be learned by the combined West is yet to be seen. So far, the learning
process has been slow for US crowd which cheered on US deindustrialization and invented a fairy tale
concept of post-industrial, that is non-productive, virtual economy.
The Russian economy is not without problems, far from it-it still tries to break with the "heritage"
of robbery and deformities of 1990s and still tries to find its way on a path different from destructive
ideology of Russia's "young reformers" who still dominate policy formulation, be it from the positions
of power or through such institutions as notorious High School of Economics.
Yet, it seems this economy which was "
left in tatters " or was an economy of a "
gas station masquerading as a country ", is the only other economy in the world which can produce
and does produce the whole spectrum of weapons ranging from small arms to state-of-the-art complex
weapon and signal processing systems. No other nation with the exception of the US and Russia, not
even China, can produce and procure a cutting edge military technology which has capabilities beyond
the reach of everyone else.
Here, the US establishment, also known as the Neocon interventionist cabal, it seems, has begun
to wake up to actual reality, not the fictitious one that the US can allegedly create for itself.
Such as the fact that Russia, in a planned and well executed manner, without any unnecessary fanfare,
launched a complete upgrade of her naval nuclear deterrent with the state of the art SSBNs of Borey-class
(Project 955 and 955A). Three submarines of this type are already afloat while other 5 are in a different
stages of completion and this is the program which most of US Russia "analysts" were laughing at
10 years ago. They are not laughing anymore.
Today it is US Navy which is in dire need for upgrade of its nuclear deterrent, with the youngest
of Ohio-class SSBN, SSBN-743 USS Louisiana, being 20 year old. The future replacement of venerable
Ohio-class SSBNs, a Columbia-class is slated to go into production in 2021 that is if the R&D
will go smoothly. But one has to consider a feature which became defining of US R&D and weapons procurement
practices-delays and astronomical costs of US weapons, which, despite constantly being declared "superior",
"unrivaled" and "best in the world" are not such at all, especially for the prices they are offered
both domestically and abroad. As in the case with above mentioned Columbia-class SSBN,
the GAO expects the cost of
the whole program to be slightly above 97 billion dollars and that means that the average cost
for each sub of this class will be around 8.1 billion dollars. That is much more than the cost
of the whole-8 advanced submarines-program of Russia's naval nuclear deterrent.
And this single example demonstrates well an abyss in fundamental approaches to the war between
US and Russia: not only do Russian weapons rival those made in US, they are much-much less expensive
and they provide Russia with this proverbial bang for a buck, also known in professional circles
which deal with strategy and operation's research as cost/effectiveness ratio. Here, United States
is simply no competition to Russia and the gap not only remains, it widens with ever-increasing speed.
As Colonel Daniel Davies admitted : " The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful
and dominant as many believe ." That brings us to a second issue, of doctrines, operational concepts
and weapons themselves.
A complete inability to see the evolution of Russia's Armed Forces is another failure which
not only irritated but continues to irritate US military-political establishment since it proved
them completely wrong. Economic "blindness" factored in here very strongly-it was inevitable
in a system that looks at the world through a grossly distorted Wall Street monetarist spyglass.
Many times it was pointed out that direct linear comparison, dollar-for-dollar, of military budgets
is wrong and does not reflect real military, in general, and combat, in particular, potentials in
the least.
While the US Navy was busy spending 420 million dollars per hull on its 26-ship fleet of Littoral
Combat Ships (LCS), Russian Navy spent two times less per unit on a frigates whose combat capabilities
dwarf those of any LCS in any aspect: ASW, Air Defense and Sensors, including the ability to launch
supersonic anti-shipping cruise missiles from 600 kilometers and land-attack missiles from 2500.
The same goes to much smaller and even much cheaper missile corvettes of Buyan and Karakurt classes
which can engage any US Navy's targets, let alone something of LCS caliber.
Experiences with a technological embarrassment known as F-35 merely confirm the fact that US is
being tangled in a bizarre combination of unrealistic doctrinal views, unachievable technological
and operational requirements and, in general, a complete failure to follow Sun Tzu's popular dictums
of "Know Thy Enemy" and "Know Thy Self". On both counts the US policy makers and doctrine mongers
failed miserably.
As late as two years ago a number of US Russia's military "experts" declared that Russia's ground
forces return to division structure was merely "symbolic". Symbolic they were not, with Russia resurrecting
both divisions and armies as appropriate operational-tactical and operational-strategic units in
order for a large scale combined arms operations. While following closely the evolution of US forces
within the framework of initially much touted Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), Russia never
changed her focus on the large scale combined arms operations. This came as a nasty surprise on 08/08/2008
when the elements of the supposedly "backward" Russian 58 th Army demolished NATO and
Israel trained, and partially equipped, Saakashivili's Army in a matter of 96 hours. Nobody celebrated
this victory and Russian Army was subjected, somewhat justifiably, to scathing criticism from many
quarters. But it was clear already then that combined arms operations of large army units remain
a principle method of the war between peer-to-peer state actors. The issue then, in 2008, was that
US didn't consider Russia a peer and even near peer "status" was grudgingly afforded due to Russia's
nuclear arsenal.
Things changed dramatically after the coup in Kiev and junta unleashing a war in Donbass. Brigade
and Division size forces there engaged in a full blown combined arms warfare, including head to head
armor clashes, employment, especially for LDNR forces, of full C4ISR capabilities and Net-Centric
warfare principles. So much so that it created a cultural shock for US military's COIN crowd
, which got used to operate in the environment of total domination over its rag-tag lightly armed
guerilla formations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And it was then, and later, in 2015, demonstrated by Russia's Syria campaign, that the realization
of an inability to defeat Russia conventionally began to dawn on many in D.C. establishment. Thus
the whole premise of last quarter century "Pax Americana"-alleged conventional military superiority
over any adversary-was blown out of the water. American military record of the last quarter century
is not impressive for a power which proclaimed herself to be a hyper-power and as having the most
powerful military in history. As US Marine Corps Captain Joshua Waddle bitterly admitted :
"Let us first begin with the fundamental underpinnings of this delusion: our measures of performance
and effectiveness in recent wars. It is time that we, as professional military officers, accept
the fact that we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Objective analysis of the U.S. military's
effectiveness in these wars can only conclude that we were unable to translate tactical victory
into operational and strategic success".
Delusion, of course, being the fact of US expecting a decisive tactical and technological superiority
on the battlefield. Overwhelming empirical evidence tells a completely different story:
United States military in future conflicts will have to deal, in case of conventional conflict
against near-peer, let alone peer, with adversary who will have C4ISR capability either approaching
that or on par with that of the US. This adversary will have the ability to counter US military
decision cycles (OODA loop) with equal frequency and will be able to produce better tactical, operational
and strategic decisions. US real and perceived advantage in electronic means of warfare (EW) will
be greatly reduced or completely suppressed by present and future EW means of adversary thus forcing
US forces fight under the conditions of partial or complete electronic blindness and with partially
or completely suppressed communications and computer networks. US will encounter combat technologies
not only on par but often better designed and used , from armor to artillery, to hyper-sonic
anti-shipping missiles, than US military ever encountered. Modern air-forces and complex advanced
air defense systems will make the main pillar of US military power-its Air Force-much less effective.
Last but not least, today the US military will have to deal with a grim reality of its staging
areas, rear supply facilities, lines of communications being the target of massive salvos of long-range
high subsonic, supersonic and hyper-sonic missiles . The US military has never encountered such
paradigm in its history. Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive
missile strike.
But above all, if to finally name this "peer", which is Russia, and that is who pre-occupies the
minds of former and current Pentagon's and National Security brass, in case of conventional conflict
Russians will be fighting in defense of their motherland. Here Russia has a track record without
equals in human history. Meanwhile, if the current military trends continue, and
there are no reasons for them to stop
, the window of opportunities for the Neocon cabal to attack Russia conventionally and unleash
a preventive war is closing really fast (if it ever existed). That is what drives to a large extent
an aggressive military rhetoric and plans, such as National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's doctrine
and war mongering.
By mid 2020s Russia's rearmament program will be largely complete, which will allow Russia's Armed
Forces to field and float a technology which will completely prevent NATO from exercising any illusions
about the outcome of any conventional war in Russia's geographic vicinity, including her littoral,
and that will mark the end of US designs on Eurasia by military means. It wouldn't matter how many
carrier battle groups US will be able to move to forward areas or how many submarines, or how many
brigades it will be able to deploy around Russia it will not be able to defeat Russia conventionally.
With that, especially when one considers China's growing military potential, comes the end of Pax-Bellum
Americana, the one we all hoped for this election cycle.
At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to
reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there
the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would
be devastating.
As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things
Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions
of grandeur".
Today, the United States in general, and her military in particular, still remain a premier geopolitical
force, but increasingly they will have to content with the fact that the short-lived era of self-proclaimed
superiority in every single facet of modern nation-states' activity is over, if it ever was the case
to start with. Will the US "Deep State" unleash a preventive war to prevent Russia from serving US
with the pink slip for its position as world's chaos-monger or will it be, rephrasing the magnificent
Corelli Barnett: " US Power had quietly vanished amid stupendous events of the 21
st Century, like a ship-of-the-line going down unperceived in the smoke and confusion
of battle ". This is the most important question of the 21 st Century so far, but
knowing US deep state ignorance of Russia one can never discount its insanity and an acute case of
sour grapes.
Andrei Martyanov has extensive knowledge of naval issues, and has been published in US Naval Institute Proceedings . Using the handle "SmoothieX12," he has written over
130,000 words of comments at The Unz Review , overwhelmingly on Russian and military
matters.
Anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT
• 100 Words Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3%
and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
Intelligent Dasein , •
Website April 17,
2017 at 5:40 am GMT
• 400 Words I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's
Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with
Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding
the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump
of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged
world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as
well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
• Agree: Amanda , bluedog , Seamus Padraig •
anon , April 17, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT
• 100 Words "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..
Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military
threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military
and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political
establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson
who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.
• Agree: Randal •
Art , April 17, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT
• 100 Words Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.
If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?
Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.
Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many
Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.
Peace - Art
•
animalogic , April 17, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
• 100 Words The US – with its NATO dogs contributing their yaps – has driven Russia & China
into an economic & strategic partnership. Such a foreign policy must rate in the top ten of historical
blunders. Essentially they have given a very helpful shove towards Eurasian unity - not yet, but
forseeable, perhaps probable.
Russia & China's continuing military advances are just one side of a coin: economic integration
& advance is the other.
If or when the US loses this struggle it need look no futher than classic Greek tragedy for the
first causes of its decline: HUBRIS. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT
Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death.
I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat!
•
mp , April 17, 2017 at 9:52 am GMT
• 100 Words It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile,
or pilot a killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's
another when "boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered,
gay friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere,
against a real army–and not some third world outpost. •
Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
• 200 Words This is a situation that should never have permitted to arise. The US Federal
Deficit is approaching $20 trillion, 2016′s Trade Deficit is $0.5 trillion and the Accumulated
Trade Deficit over the last 30 years about $10 trillion. The US is to all intents bankrupt, and
bankrupt states quickly lose their empires.
Of course, America's creditors – China, Japan etc – have rigged the financial sector so that America
is still able to afford their goods. Herein, lies the solution. The US dollar is a fiat currency
and will collapse sooner or later. It is in Russia and China's interests that they precipitate
such a collapse ASAP, even if they themselves suffer negative economic consequences.
Faced with an imploding economy, and a choice between minimum social welfare measures and a grotesquely
expansive military, there can only be one outcome for America. The Neocons will be defanged.
This form of economic warfare has got to be a lot safer and more effective in achieving its aims
than actual warfare. I sincerely hope that the Russians and Chinese have some such plan formulated.
The era of military confrontation should have been over with the end of the Soviet Union. The
Neocons have stolen the Peace, and helped themselves to the Peace Dividend. Reply More...
This Commenter Display All Comments
reiner Tor , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT
I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians, it's also
a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.
Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with
great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them – none? a little?
a lot? a whole salt mine?
•
LondonBob , April 17, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT
• 100 Words Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities,
interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating
over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional
imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous
to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline.
Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.
We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.
•
Anatoly Karlin , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT
• 400 WordsNEW! Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am
sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones)
and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time.
•
NoseytheDuke, April 17, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT
Having read many, many of SmoothieX12′s knowledgable comments and now this article, I would imagine
that his many critics have enough egg on their faces to have their eggs any way they want them,
except sunny side up of course.
Nobody should be surprised by the revelations here nor should they feel disheartened. It is
doubtful that Russia has any plans or even thoughts to ever invade or harm the US. The upside
could be that the Neocons and the AIPAC crowd might become so disempowered that they will be finally
held to account for their many crimes and that would be good for everyone.
AP , April 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and
with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Goods and services
in Russia are considerably less expensive than in the West (and this includes the cost of producing
fighter jets or rockets), so for such purposes GDP PPP is a better indicator than is nominal GDP.
In terms of GDP PPP, Russia is of course not on par with the United States but is considerably
higher than Mexico. It is in the same neighborhood as places such as Hungary.
Russia's overall GDP PPP places it slightly below Germany – 6th place in the world:
@anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..
Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military
threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military
and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political
establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson
who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. I agreed with the main thrust of
your comment, but I would just note that I don't agree with the last sentence:
It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war
in 1917.
The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial
origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe
Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before
Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the
European powers to go for the big one.
It's just the nature of the beast.
Lewl42, April 17, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Russia is a middle
income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita.
But the US GDP is of an different structure. Compared it is overblown with pure financial sales
and "hedonistic adjustments". More is blown by the culture. In the US much more everyday things
relies on money. In case of case they are all worth nothing. Furthermore, if it comes to conflicts
than the whole US Infrastructure has to be "revalued", and i doubt that it can withheld some stress
tests.
If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke
No country that relies on oil ( Russia do not) has made substantial improvements. Normally
they are problem states where the problems made by oil are solved by money.
So from my point of view the opposite is true. Russia has made the big mistake to open itself
to the west and was bitten. Now they readjust (with a border to china). Thank's to the US Oligarchs
which thrown away that chance for they're primitive Neanderthal tribe thinking.
reiner Tor, Website April
17, 2017 at 12:33 pm GMT
@mp It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile, or pilot a
killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's another when
"boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered, gay
friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere,
against a real army--and not some third world outpost. Don't worry, when the going gets tough,
suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality".
•
alexander, April 17, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
Thank you Mr Martyanov, for a highly informative article.
I am always amazed at the "euphemisms" of our "belligerent war" era, and how they affix themselves,
and have affixed themselves, to our mendacious and deceitful behavior.
Take the idea of a "surge", as was used during the Iraq disaster, as a substitute for the word
"escalation" because nobody was comfortable with "escalating the war" once the imminent WMD threat
had proven to be phony .so our belligerent elites substituted the word "surge" to ram through
funding for the escalation.
Or lets look at the "euphemisms" of "pre-emptive war" or "preventive war". Do they not function
as substitutes for what is , in reality, the greatest crime any nation on earth can commit "War
of Aggression"?
There are other areas too, where we need to take a long, hard look a this " parade of euphemisms"
which is constantly inserting itself into the hearts and minds of our citizens .
For example, lets take a look at the word "propaganda", which is a word that, for the most
part, stands on its own ,yet, for arguments sake, does it not function as a "euphemism",( in our
ongoing global belligerence) for FRAUD ?
As we think about these assorted "euphemistic realities" set upon us in our tragic age..we
understand the acute distinction between defining something as "war propaganda" versus "WAR FRAUD".
"War propaganda", however desultory a term, is understood as a legitimate tool within the toolbox
of belligerence whereas WAR FRAUD is implicitly understood as a CRIME..which is in need of punishment.
Have not our euphemistic manipulations , like "preemptive war", or "preventive war",overwhelmed
the integrity of our national discourse, and paved the way for heinous murderous behavior which
would normally not be tolerated ?,
Is not their primary purpose to insulate us from our own awareness of the CRIMES we have committed
, and will continue to commit ?.
What a blessing it will be for the whole wide world, once we end this " charade of euphemisms" and
start calling things what they truly are.
Erebus, April 17, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT
Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.
The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global
Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling
C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.
Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground
if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself
to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight
to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.
The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs
aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being
revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with
none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure.
If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.
No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed.
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts
when that moment has passed.
reiner Tor, Website
April 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception
of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind
in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the
art is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has
made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In
robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly
demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years,
but not in 20-30 years time.
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved – all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
AP, April 17, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time. I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But –
You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs
Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side
has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real
test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
"but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military
spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task.
I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent
AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.
iffen, April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
This is an interesting and informative article.
Can you give us your opinion of the F-35 program and to a lesser extent the LCS program? I
have no doubt that we get good and reliable information in the US, but just in case, a different
perspective on whether the projected capabilities are actually being met by the weapons would
be nice to consider.
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 1:14 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time.
Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.
Thank you.
Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently
began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
Processing power in military applications is less dependent on 10 or 28 nm, than on mathematics
and algorithms. Both architectures are more than sufficient for the whole spectrum of military
tasks, be it signal processing or developing firing solutions.
I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent
AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
Apples and oranges. Producing a state-of-the-art nuclear sub is on the order of magnitude more
complex task than producing even a very good SSK. China now produces very good AIP SSKs of 039A
type, she still is not capable to produce a nuke with at least third generation characteristics.
Railguns, and associated naval EM systems
Absolutely useless, other than to impress journalists, in combat paradigm where hyper-sonic
missiles with ranges of 1000 kilometers begin to rule the day. I think 3M22 Zircon reaching Mach=8
this weekend on trials is by far more impressive and influential on the tactical and even political
level than any rail-gun. Zircon is a change in combat paradigm of such a scale that it is even
difficult to completely grasp it at this stage. I may elaborate on it in depth at some point of
time.
reiner Tor, • Website
April 17, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
@AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But -
You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs
Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side
has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real
test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
"but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can"
– Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany
just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am
sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones)
and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a
tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran.
Avery, April 17, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send
straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". { suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die .}
What happens IF straight white men refuse to go and die?
[Stunning Evidence that the Left Has Won its War on White Males]
{White males, in large numbers, are simply losing their will to live, and as a result, they
are dying so prematurely and in such large numbers that a startling demographic gap has emerged.
It is not just the "opioid epidemic" that is killing off white working class males, it is a spiritual
crisis, and Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have the numbers to sustain this conclusion.}
Carlton Meyer, • Website April
17, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Over the years, the
Pentagon encouraged Congress to move parts of national security spending out of its budget to
the extent that almost half is found outside the DOD. The USA really spends over a trillion dollars
a year. For example, nuclear weapons research, testing, procurement, and maintenance is found
in the Dept of Energy budget.
And as others have noted, GDP is a measure of activity, not prosperity. For example, mortgage
refinancing creates lots of GDP, but no real wealth. Hurricanes and arson are good for GDP too!
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 1:45 pm GMT
@Z-man Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death.
I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat!
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From
people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300
seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes
online, well–it is a different game altogether from there.
Randal , April 17, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT
An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many
good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both
in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.
But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines
and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends.
Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody
except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they
don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems
will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.
If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying
basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect,
measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:
Share of world gdp, ppp:
US
2020 14.878%
2015 15.809%
2010 16.846%
2000 20.76%
China
2020 19.351%
2015 17.082%
2010 13.822%
2000 7.389%
Russia
2020 2.836%
2015 3.275%
2010 3.641%
2000 3.294%
Source IMF per economywatch.com
Population (2017):
China: 1,388,232,693
US: 326,474,013
Russia: 143,375,006
These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are
concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's
military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all
but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative
to all rivals, for decades to come.
To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its
rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had
around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and
Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the
British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in
the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic
strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).
The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp
from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so
it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely
have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that
might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might
be different.
The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in
the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.
mushroom, April 17, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT
When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's blatantly obvious – which is
what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's hidden caves. What happened
to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of this reality!
So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c If you want to enjoy happy days don't
mess with the bear!
5371, April 17, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Stupid beyond belief.
Countries can't go broke doing something, if they control the natural and human resources they
need to accomplish it. In addition, you apparently did not read Smoothie's explanation of why
just comparing the sums spent is silly. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
@Randal I agreed with the main thrust of your comment, but I would just note that I don't
agree with the last sentence:
It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war
in 1917.
The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial
origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe
Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before
Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the
European powers to go for the big one.
It's just the nature of the beast. Yes but up until 1898 – the war against Spain – the US actually
got something out of its wars. Wars with countries BEYOND the Americas have gained nothing for
America. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher
test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Turkey's military
has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the reputation corresponds with reality any longer.
•
Agent76 , April 17, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT
• 100 Words March 19, 2017 Putin Prepares For Invasion of Europe With Massive Cuts to Military
Spending
Russia announces "deepest defense budget cuts since 1990s". Putin must be stopped before it's
too late. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world has enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace
and prosperity. Long gone are the days of wasteful military expenditures and no-bid contracts
to build airplanes and aircraft carriers that neither fly nor float.
Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria
and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
ANOSPH , April 17, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people
who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem
almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online,
well--it is a different game altogether from there. Excellent article. I look forward to many
more from you.
Re: the S400, for those interested, TASS developed an excellent and visually appealing overview
on the system in Russian:
Just keep scrolling down.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher
test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. The real point is
that Russia and Turkey are almost neighbors while N.K. is about 8,000 miles from the US. In other
words the US could ignore Korea. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
• 100 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
Neither France nor Germany could have stayed out once Russia was in, but then both of them had
given their respective allies every encouragement to bring matters to a head. The French had a
great increase in self-confidence just in the last two or three years. You are right that Serbia
didn't even decide to reject the ultimatum until they heard Russia was already going ahead with
pre-mobilisation. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Hopefully at least some of those
straight white males will know better. Hopefully.
Then again people often act contrary to their best interests.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hunsdon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
Thank you, sir. Great article. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 3:02 pm GMT
• 300 WordsNEW! @Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree
with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly
Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.
But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines
and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends.
Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody
except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they
don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems
will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.
If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying
basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect,
measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:
Share of world gdp, ppp:
US
2020 14.878%
2015 15.809%
2010 16.846%
2000 20.76%
China
2020 19.351%
2015 17.082%
2010 13.822%
2000 7.389%
Russia
2020 2.836%
2015 3.275%
2010 3.641%
2000 3.294%
Source IMF per economywatch.com
Population (2017):
China: 1,388,232,693
US: 326,474,013
Russia: 143,375,006
These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are
concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's
military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all
but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative
to all rivals, for decades to come.
To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its
rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had
around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and
Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the
British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in
the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic
strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).
The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp
from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so
it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely
have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that
might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might
be different.
The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in
the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many
of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension–look no further than Mosul which is still, after
6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In
general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition.
•
anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
• 200 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the Serbs flat out, "You guys
are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We are out of it.",' there would
never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have been a minor brawl between Serbia
and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just another Balkan skirmish. It would
have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption of the Kaiser when he issued
his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions of lives, including his own and
his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and lost a disastrous war with Japan.
That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing him. He SHOULD have learned
his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas was an incredibly stupid
man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. •
TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
• 300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and
waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is
nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and
the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term
not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every
level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading
up college students with massive unpayable debt so that university administrators can get paid
like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient
as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial
accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible. To make more
money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become
so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right
people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans
were not worthy of their brilliant leadership
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse , April 17, 2017 at 3:12 pm GMT
@Art Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.
If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?
Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.
Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many
Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.
Peace --- Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear
of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit. •
Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
• 200 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
Japan was certainly the greatest beneficiary of the war in economic terms. Their exports ended
up tripling to fuel the demand of the wartime European economies and especially to fill in the
gap for consumer goods in the East Asian markets whose normal suppliers had redirected their production
for the war effort. Shipbuilding in Japan also boomed as a result of wartime demands. Pre-WWI
Japan was still importing most of its major warships from Britain; post-WWI Japan was building
them all on its own.
Romania gained a lot in territory but its doubtful whether these gains were worth it in terms
of the lives they cost.
The United States certainly gained in terms of geopolitical power, but that was largely due
to the same wartime economic circumstances that had benefited Japan, with the addition of supplanting
Britain as the world's leading financial power. These gains, however, would have been won whether
or not we'd sent 100,000 of our own to die in France, so their lives ultimately amounted to little
more than a sacrifice to Woodrow Wilson's egomaniacal dreams of reshaping the world order into
a utopia.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
5371 , April 17, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article
here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time. WW1, unlike Barbarossa, didn't start with a German attack on Russia, although in each
case the argument was made by some (stronger in retrospective for 1941 than 1914) that Russia
would be too strong to take on in a couple of years. The difference is that a number of factors
– the ideological conflict, the success of "blitzkrieg", the weak Soviet performance at the start
of the Finnish war – created an illusory hope of easy victory for the Germans along with the fear
of later defeat. That tipped the balance in favour of attack.
As I understand it, the claimed regular progress to smaller and smaller chip feature sizes has
for some time been a matter of marketing, not reality. Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DannyMarcus , April 17, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus
among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China,
which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. •
Randal , April 17, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
• 200 Words @AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses.
But -
You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs
Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side
has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real
test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
"but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can"
– Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany
just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am
sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones)
and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
Russia would crush Turkey very quickly in a straight one on one conflict, though it would struggle
to physically occupy it. The only reason Turkey would have any capability to resist at all is
that Turkey has full US backing, both in terms of the NATO alliance and in terms of the military
systems and capabilities it fields. Russia's capabilities, in contrast, are wholly indigenous.
Individually, the two countries are not remotely in the same class, militarily.
Likewise for the US versus Iran or NK. The problem would likely not be in defeating the military
forces themselves, but in occupying and holding ground longer term, and dealing with problems
caused by horizontal escalation.
These are issues not really of military capabilities, but rather of national political will
to apply those capabilities ruthlessly and to inflict and to take the losses required for total
victory.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
gwynedd1 , April 17, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT
The US is not worried about Russia. They were worried about the EU and Russia with economic
links to China. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT
• 200 Words @5371 Turkey's military has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the
reputation corresponds with reality any longer. Their recent mishaps in Syria certainly cast some
doubts on their formidable reputation. However I would hesitate to go so far as to say that Turkey
has become a paper tiger.
I don't know if there's a more professional terminology for this, but I think there is a difference
between what you might call weakness the surface level and weakness at the core.
The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one
which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
America in the years before it became a permanently mobilized state was also prone to this
sort of happening in the initial stages of its wars – see the rout at Kasserine Pass in World
War II or the initial defeats it suffered to the North Koreans in 1950. The British made "our
Italians" jokes after Kasserine, but these had a short shelf life as US performance picked up
very quickly afterwards.
The state of the Turkish military right now seems more likely to be one of surface-level weakness
(which would be tempered by exposure to battle) than of core-level weakness (which would be exacerbated
by it).
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/this-cold-war-is-even-crazier-than-the-last/19689#.WPTiK9QrK4Q
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Astuteobservor II , April 17, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
excellent first article on unz. looking forward to more. Reply More... This Commenter
Display All Comments
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT
• 100 Words A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding
of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
• Agree: Kiza •
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
• 100 Words
The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one
which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring
who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.
Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
from book: Fighting in Hell – German Ordeal on Eastern Front
•
reiner Tor , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Ondrej
The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one
which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring
who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.
Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
from book: Fighting in Hell - German Ordeal on Eastern Front
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their
experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf
in history.
When was it?
•
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
• 100 Words @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical
poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the
Russian stock market.
Try to make following thought experiment, what would happen with SP100 financial valuation
of shares GN a Lockheed in case of conflict and what would be impact on with Suchoi and MIG shares
and how this would impact real economy instead of economics?
Luckily there is still plenty of people in Russian companies who were educated in economy instead
of economics..
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
From seeing some discussions in Russian TV channels, I can say people in Russia are in fact
disgusted with part of government still trying to apply Western type of economics..
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their
experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf
in history.
When was it? according to book 4. March 1943
Mannerheim in front of German General as reaction to some public speech of H. Göring before.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still,
after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible.
In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition. Very good article and David Stockman says the same
thing on our GDP that its do to very creative accounting much like our BLS report . Reply
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
• 600 Words Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said – I do not agree
with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that 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.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level – I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
•
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 6:19 pm GMT
• 300 WordsNEW! @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the
typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of
real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
Mind you–this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever–make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about 10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident.
•
Jonathan Revusky , •
Website April
17, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
• 200 Words I think this is a good article. I say "I think so" because the truth of the matter
is that I lack the detailed domain knowledge to be able to evaluate it very well.
The comment I would make about it (which is not a critique of the article per se ) is
that Russia (or the USSR speaking more precisely) did suffer a horrendous defeat from which it
is still recovering - I mean, in the Cold War. However, that defeat was not military in nature.
It was entirely political/psychological/ideological. (N.B. The complete neocon/zionist takeover
of the U.S. and other Western countries also occurred without firing a shot, no?)
Anyway, no grand battles occurred like Stalingrad or Kursk, yet somehow the USSR was as defeated
a nation in the 1990′s as Germany was in 1945! In my view, the AngloZionists would be more interested
in repeating that feat, than actually getting into a real hot war. That, also, would be their
template for defeating China, as opposed to getting into some land war in Asia.
I assume the above, because I have the tendency to think they are crazy, but not that
crazy. But that said, I don't know for sure either. Maybe they really are that crazy and
I just don't want to believe it. After all, it's really terrifying to think they are insane on
that level.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
carlos22 , April 17, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
• 100 Words Russia is in the position to be king maker out of China & US.
Think about it Russia collapses & disintergrates, Siberia goes to China, which with all this
land mass, energy reserves and population overtakes the US to become leading superpower. Ask yourself
is that what the US wants?
Or
China betrays Russia, Russia then goes on to be US bitch, allows US missile defence to encircle
China with US bases. China looses a key friend at the UN, when the SHTF in Tibet, Tywan or Hong
Kong China finds its self alone. Is that what China wants?
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I
do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that 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.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia
can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.
Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
Rules –
1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
2. Go fast, finish University in 22 – go to production and learn from olders
3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)
This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.
Problem with many current – not only military products, that their designers often do not have
idea how they are used..
You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it
is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-)
•
Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
• 300 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly superficial
knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in US or British
schools.
The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could
comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this
has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through
Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia
actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria
in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked
by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war
started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans,
but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to
remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory
and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary
to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And
so on.
Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in
Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn
of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody
was just dragged into WW1.
You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin
with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's
deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire.
It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs
for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.
•
Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT
@Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of
it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's
points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.
But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines
and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends.
Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody
except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they
don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems
will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.
If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying
basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect,
measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:
Share of world gdp, ppp:
US
2020 14.878%
2015 15.809%
2010 16.846%
2000 20.76%
China
2020 19.351%
2015 17.082%
2010 13.822%
2000 7.389%
Russia
2020 2.836%
2015 3.275%
2010 3.641%
2000 3.294%
Source IMF per economywatch.com
Population (2017):
China: 1,388,232,693
US: 326,474,013
Russia: 143,375,006
These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are
concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's
military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all
but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative
to all rivals, for decades to come.
To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its
rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had
around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and
Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the
British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in
the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic
strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).
The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp
from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so
it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely
have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that
might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might
be different.
The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in
the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities. Randal,
what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant? US GDP contains a lot of things
that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia with nice shoes, highly apprised
real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that makes US GDP larger than it really
is. •
AP , April 17, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.
Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:
Great article. Thanks. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last
year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal
points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures "Russia is a middle
income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very
funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only
count asset without counting liability US maybe in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count
net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita, a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism
logic, claiming credit where credit is not due, living in a world detached from reality.
"If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on
the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia,
nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru
the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal
spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities"
which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and
rhetoric taught in the western universities.
•
Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anonymouse You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many
years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.
You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal
safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.
Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean – it is crucial.
Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.
The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.
Congress must stop this – but they cannot because Jews control them also.
Peace - Art
p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!
•
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:15 pm GMT
• 100 WordsNEW! @AP
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.
Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:
Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:
Faced with the choice between most expensive Tesla and new F-150 truck for free–I would choose
Tesla, sell it back to dealership or would find some moron from Redmond/Kirkland area and sell
Tesla to him and then would go buy F-150 and would use the rest of the money for other useful
purposes, such as donating to animal shelter or will help some family in need. I certainly would
make sure that I have the access to a bottle or two of really good bourbon to celebrate my new
F-150. I wish, though, that Subaru made trucks.
• Agree: AP Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Wally , April 17, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT
• 100 Words I seriously doubt the author's statement:
Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet
Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet
fighter?
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Laughable.
Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.
•
Diversity Heretic , April 17, 2017 at 8:25 pm GMT
@anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..
Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military
threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military
and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political
establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson
who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. The Spanish-American War was completely
unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course
with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto
Rico. •
Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT
• 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of
possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and
the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in
Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy
military adventures in North Korea.
Too late – Trump is sending in two more carrier groups.
US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carriers Toward Korean Peninsula: Yonhap
According to a report by South Korea's primary news outlet, Yonhap, the Pentagon has directed
a total of three US aircraft carriers toward the Korean Peninsula, citing a South Korean government
source.
This is insane – another preventive war like Iraq – but on China and Russia's doorstep.
Congress must stop this!
Peace - Art
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:35 pm GMT
• 400 WordsNEW! @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said
- I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that 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.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military
has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point,
elaborate on it–there are some serious nuances.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies
which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus
it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages
in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put
it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers
are copy artists, China being the master copier.
Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control
(management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example,
it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example,
Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s
are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results
in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full
Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat?
Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but,
say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia
can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate
some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these
wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?
I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this
way–viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may
create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know.
•
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:36 pm GMT
NEW! @Ondrej
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.
Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
Rules -
1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
2. Go fast, finish University in 22 - go to production and learn from olders
3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)
This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.
Problem with many current - not only military products, that their designers often do not have
idea how they are used..
You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it
is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-) Some very good points you made. •
Sam Shama , April 17, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT
• 400 Words @Andrei Martyanov
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still,
after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible.
In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition.
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely
from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my,
now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts"
know what they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
•
AtomAnt , April 17, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
@inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding
of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't. That's just bankster propaganda. In truth, anything past 5% (generously) for the financial
sector is just parasitism. The US S&P 500 hovers around 30% financial sector. That's just elites
extracting resources from productive people. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonHUN , April 17, 2017 at 8:47 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus
among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy,
the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union
collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not
by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many
of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that
the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90′s according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
•
Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 8:49 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident. The financialisation of the economy has been a disaster in most Western countries, especially
for manufacturing companies. I had personal dealings with Pilkingtons, a World-leading British
glass company. At the first opportunity, the Banks and other corporate investors sold it to a
Japanese competitor. Pilkingtons is now a branch operation and has lost its research base.
Mr Putin seems to realise the importance of indigenous manufacturing industry- and not only for
defence- related purposes. So the capitalisation of such companies has been treated with great
caution, e g Gazprom. I could be wrong, of course.
So I must ask if you think Mr Putin has an Advanced Manufacturing Strategy in place, like Eamonn
Fingleton sees in Japan, Korea, Germany etc. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:52 pm GMT
• 200 WordsNEW! @Wally I seriously doubt the author's statement:
Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet ...
Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet fighter?
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Laughable.
Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.
Germany did the heavy lifting.
Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly
British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for
the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved
in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space
to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Actually:
Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder,
so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget
about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for
you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed
technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with
the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about
such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude
than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;)
•
Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT
• 100 Words ,
There is wisdom to the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Your WW1 rant is
lacking in accurate facts and the actual facts that you refer to are misapplied subsequently your
logic is flawed and you find yourself in the oft quoted IBM construct of GIGO.
The genesis and the triggers for the eruption of WW1 are broad and complex and could generally
be put in the context of the colloquial term " a perfect storm". Your Slavic tinted glasses illuminate
only a tip of the tip of the iceberg as it were. I state this in the spirit of constructive criticism.
Cheers-
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 9:14 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov Some very good points you made. Having recent experience
in teaching in former socialist country and remembering and comparing with past I must say
It is quite painful to watch horrors of destruction of once functional educational system of
your own country which is trying to mimic current trends in western education.
I guess in Russia, given by typical Slavic tendency to extremes, is even more horrible. But
it looks like they do get it and they have still chance revert this trend.
First step is always to recognize problem, which is in my opinion given by public discussions
such as
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
Hmm first we would have to rebuild our manufacturing sector seeing most of our goods including
military are outsourced out, and I question the raw economics endowment what ever they are, and
then you have to retrain the workers for the old class is gone and the new isn't all that inclined
to work, and who would want to invest in a hallowed out economy, trillions in debt more trillions
in future liabilities trillions in derivitives little to no natural resources left military projects
milked to the bone months years overdue I'm afraid your caught in the light on the hill we are
exceptional bit but I presume that's to be expected.. Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
@DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US
war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related
comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. If these countries really wanted to stop the USA, why not make
the American troops leave their countries? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Corvinus , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
@Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security.
The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer
the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. "The Spanish-American War
was completely unnecessary for U.S. security."
At the time, yes. In the long run, no.
"The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan "
Imperialistic ambitions in the Pacific by the U.S. and Japan put our nations on a path to fight.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
colm , April 17, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among
America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
Those who fought for the Entente in the Great War fought for the sake of the Third World.
Veterans Day should be abolished immediately. Memorial Day is enough.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for
U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and
even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. Yes
of course, you are right. The 1898 war with Spain was 100% a war of choice for America. Without
it, it was certainly possible war with Japan could have been avoided. Also agree that Puerto Rico
has proven to be utterly worthless to America. Should be given its independence ASAP. Reply
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT
• 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of
possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and
the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. Eu, japan, taiwaneses, south koreans Their governements are
all puppets, whores of washington, the people doesnt matter, we (I am european) have no voice-
All westerns politics are the same whores. Countrys and people have no value. Only globalists
are going for bussines. Rusia is the great premium: The major land in the world- Reply More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
• 300 Words @SmoothieX12
The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless
social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that
you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP
and GNP tabulations.
Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing
on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected
and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude
would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral
was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval
and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first
and foremost and that was that.
I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did
I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers
at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were
non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.
Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the
event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident
(USS Donald Cook).
Cheers-
•
The Alarmist , April 17, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Erebus Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.
The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global
Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling
C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.
Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground
if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself
to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight
to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.
The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed
at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived,
the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of
the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the
subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.
No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed.
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts
when that moment has passed.
"The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs
aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being
revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with
none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure.
If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."
You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking
about massive NATO reponse as being appropriate can one seriously believe the US would not repond
with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear?
•
Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:54 pm GMT
My WW1 post was for Kiza. Somehow that got scrubbed Reply More... This Commenter
Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.
I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)
Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:
a) Military Complex (waste of money)
b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice – but can live without it)
e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China
anyway)
h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)
To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in
form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for
Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..
•
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
• 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident. You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps – all that shows is
that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine
in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises
that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit
on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's
not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise
as much capital as they need.
As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's
been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities.
Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell
and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade
them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on
the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building
engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?
Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an
idiot.
•
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people
who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem
almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online,
well--it is a different game altogether from there. Well, it shouldn't be that complicated because
it has to be used rapidly. Hopefully it is easy for the user to operate it.
Thanks for the reply. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT
@Ondrej
There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.
I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)
Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:
a) Military Complex (waste of money)
b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice - but can live without it)
e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China
anyway)
h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)
To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in
form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for
Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..
You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man •
Cyrano , April 17, 2017 at 10:31 pm GMT
• 300 Words Any military conflict between Russia and US is bound to degenerate into nuclear
war. That's because only degenerates can plan such event and even try to predict "survivability"
of such war. I believe only recently US funded a study to explore the outcome of such conflict.
You don't have to be military genius to realize that the odds are in Russia's favor.
How so? Simple. More than half of US population lives in 30 major cities. Russia's population
is much more dispersed. I think I read somewhere that during the cold war US had enough nukes
to destroy every USSR city of 10 000 and more inhabitants. Still, the Russians can inflict far
more casualties targeting far fewer cities than US can.
For those who think that western weapons are superior because they are more complicated – perfection
is always simple.
One of the most symptomatic examples of what's wrong with American military technology is F35.
At the end of the cold war the feeling of omnipotence has spread into their military technology.
F35 was supposed to do the job of what previously used to be done by several different planes.
It was supposed to be a ground support, vertical takeoff, interceptor, aircraft carrier based,
bomber, air superiority fighter plane.
While they were at it, why they didn't include in their specifications ability to fly to the
moon, be used as a cargo plane, awacs, fuel refueling tanker and passenger plane. When something
is designed to be universally good at different tasks it usually ends not being particularly good
at any of them.
Congratulations on your first article Andrei, keep up the good work.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger Randal, what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant?
US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia
with nice shoes, highly apprised real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that
makes US GDP larger than it really is.
US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.
You say it as though it's a bad thing.
•
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT
@Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear
of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.
Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean - it is crucial.
Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.
The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.
Congress must stop this - but they cannot because Jews control them also.
Peace --- Art
p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!
Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when
we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood
pressure up! •
Today,s Thought , April 17, 2017 at 10:42 pm GMT
[ ] • 3,200 WORDS • 93 COMMENTS • REPLY [ ]
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Germany did the heavy lifting.
Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly
British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for
the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved
in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space
to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Actually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka
Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder,
so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget
about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for
you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed
technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with
the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about
such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude
than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) This reminds me of the line from 'Ice Station
Zebra' by the Patrick McGoohan played character 'David Jones of MI6′, "The Russians put our (Brits)
camera made by *our* German scientists and your (US) film made by *your* German scientists into
their satellite made by *their* German scientists." LOL! Exaggeration of course but funny and
somewhat true. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 10:53 pm GMT
• 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of
possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and
the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. There are a lot of nations wanting wars between USA, Russia
and China, from top of the list is Japan, India, UK, They believe they will be the next global
hegemons standing on the ashes of USA, Russia and China.
Taiwanese are mentally colonized Japanese wannabes, they will be happy just returning to the
Japanese colony status.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
• 100 Words @inertial
US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.
You say it as though it's a bad thing. No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view
currently discussed. Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in
military terms.
I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes
and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example
and Facebook and others are another. •
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
• 100 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors)
need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back
then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America
is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third
world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now
they are probably happy that the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
"still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru the thin air, why did you stop
at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind, ? You should know fake news
is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big fake news. •
martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT
• 200 Words good post smooty. And good coments also.I have three issues I am thinking some
time ago. First: The soviet Union not colapsed, Gorbachev vas not a moron or a traitor. It was
50 years chess-game- The west is in turmoil already. Gorbachev did not do nothing without the
approbation of the hundreds of specialists .The same with Trump, as USA has about more than 5
milions of people working in intel or something about. Second misread: Usa did not lost the war
in Irak or Afganistan., as is said by journalists. Bush (W) said it in clair: I´ll bring the caos
to irak, to stoneage.
In Afganistan they are for 16 years for run the caos meantime. If they left , te country could
go normaly, They cant afford this. Is for future desestabilization of central asia. Three: In
the future war, you can see that the europeens are too sweet for go to war against Russia (Don´t
talk about the gays, trans and woman of de USA Army) : What about theese 2 milions of refugees
(arabs mens in militar age, all men?) All in Germany. This is not an Army for go to fight with
russia? Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
• 100 WordsNEW! @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable
consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton,
that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely
standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable
outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently
enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's
economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just
barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an
acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets
to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the
entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as
merely a means to this end.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality".
US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality"
That did not happen during the Korean War and Vietnam War. The straight white men stayed behind
and played gook hockey games.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
If anyone is interested in the perverse incentives in place in the US military development
system, which result in such spectacular failures and misallocation of resources, you could read
this:
martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT
• 100 Words The westerns politics, that works against their own people (starting with Merkel),
and are absolute whores or the globalists of washington and elsewere .. (city of London, Rotschilds,
Jews,Vatican, , etc) Have learned the trick of the proxys, as they are now in Siria. And conciousness
that the european people are against else war, (and dont talk about the gay-trans-woman army of
the EEUU) The criminals europeans politics are getting milions of future proxy warriors from muslim
countrys. Their job will be the war we are not going. They, the "refugees" will get money, drugs,
guns, slave women, alcohol, and will go to war against rusia, and in europe inf they are said.
cheers.
Ahh!.. They give him the blue pill, also, (Are not than macho men?) Reply More... This
Commenter Display All Comments
Wally , April 17, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
Germany did the heavy lifting.
Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly
British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for
the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved
in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space
to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Actually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka
Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder,
so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget
about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for
you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed
technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with
the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about
such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude
than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) You really need to know what you are talking
about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
About "Lyulka"?
" In 1945-47 he designed the first Soviet jet engine ".
Hoisted by your own petard.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Zzz , April 17, 2017 at 11:44 pm GMT
@Kiza You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly
superficial knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in
US or British schools.
The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could
comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this
has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through
Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia
actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria
in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked
by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war
started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans,
but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to
remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory
and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary
to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And
so on.
Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in
Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn
of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody
was just dragged into WW1.
You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin
with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's
deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire.
It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs
for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.
Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold
to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution
Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1
Are the same people.
•
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 11:47 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view currently discussed.
Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in military terms.
I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes
and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example
and Facebook and others are another. I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot
more of those non-military components.
Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution
to GDP is minuscule.
•
DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:48 pm GMT
• 100 Words One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's
insistence on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their
submarine fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.
The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations,
not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the
world.
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how
modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of
modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.
Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to
the bottom.
•
Sergey Krieger , April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
• 100 Words @inertial I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot more of
those non-military components.
Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution
to GDP is minuscule. For this I believe nationalization of what was "privatized" in 90′s is needed
and new industrialization drive to become more self sufficient and less dependent upon outsiders.
Finances also is a matter of concern. Russia has very good experience in how to do it. Political
power will is needed though. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Mark Chapman , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
• 200 Words Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology to use up budget
dollars – a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency by using less
than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget is likely
to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun development,
but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.
An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be
rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the
top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems
often are unnecessarily complex – sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers – and the fiasco
of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand
on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard
of pork-barreling and design changes.
As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly
the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with – in this instance
– China's missile corvettes.
Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty
phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.
•
Avery , April 18, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT
• 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people
who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem
almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online,
well--it is a different game altogether from there. {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind
boggling capabilities".}
Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g.
U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable
conditions of real war.
To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient
Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which
Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate
of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.
Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s
too, unofficially).
•
AtomAnt , April 18, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
• 200 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors)
need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back
then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America
is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third
world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now
they are probably happy that the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
"Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"
Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft
carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing
3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A
Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".
I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.
Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central
bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They
insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia
is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general
said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.
Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector
wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin.
• Agree: Kiza •
wayfarer , April 18, 2017 at 12:32 am GMT
SAR (search and rescue) versus SAD (search and destroy)
"Disaster of the Kursk"
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:53 am GMT
• 200 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having an insatiable parasite on its
back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in general whilst simultaneously
plotting to undermine it.
The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in
"loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared
as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.
No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure
in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has
accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of
the Neocon Israel Firsters.
You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for
the American people, right? What a tosser!
•
NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:58 am GMT
@anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia
as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the
Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading
but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships.
Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy
that the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
Did you skip the article and go straight to comments? Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT
• 100 Words @Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy
to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land,
that's when I get my blood pressure up! What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they
need those weapons for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded
by the US (plus a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to
interfere with NK? •
Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 1:27 am GMT
• 200 Words @The Alarmist
"The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs
aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being
revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with
none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure.
If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."
You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking about
massive NATO reponse as being appropriate ... can one seriously believe the US would not repond
with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear? I understand that there
would be great hue and cry to take revenge. That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic
instincts when that moment has passed.
America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's
death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest
known.
The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia
would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several
generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know
well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW,
other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every
reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.
Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear
attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would
be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to
keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them.
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:38 am GMT
• 100 Words @Zzz
Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to
foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution
Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1
Are the same people. I thought I explained that it is the Russian liberals who picked up the Western
view of who to blame for WW1, just like they picked up everything else from their Western role
models. The Russian nationalists do not blame the Serbs "for dragging them into WW1″ because this
is principally a Western idea of how to push discord among Slavic relatives, not that it even
matters that it is completely untrue. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT
@Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission.
It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I
get my blood pressure up! You are stupid, are you not? •
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT
• 100 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}
Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g.
U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable
conditions of real war.
To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient
Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which
Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate
of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.
Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s
too, unofficially).
Well Scuds were strange beasts. Saddam's Scuds did not have regular ballistic trajectories, probably
because they were old and falling apart during flight. Thus, their trajectories became unintentionally
unpredictable/random. I agree that the Raytheon's shootdown rate was a boldface lie which professor
Postol exposed. But randomised trajectory is the reason why the shootdown rate was so low.
The Russian MIRV ICBM Bullawa uses exactly the same approach of randomising trajectory of each
vehicle intentionally, small but quick completely random maneuvers, which makes it virtually impossible
to shootdown. The US would have to place supercooled computers on its interceptors to destroy
those babies. Therefore, another relatively cheap but highly effective countermeasure to US ABMD,
a beautiful response.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT
• 200 Words @Joe Wong "Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country,
in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national
debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only count asset without counting liability US maybe
in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita,
a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism logic, claiming credit where credit is not
due, living in a world detached from reality.
"If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on
the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia,
nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru
the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal
spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities"
which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and
rhetoric taught in the western universities.
Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
No, it cannot.
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local
currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD,
the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand,
and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print
enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough,
and so they stay where they are.
So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest
of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties.
A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of
thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.
The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring.
You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
• 100 Words OT, here is some education about North Korea for the stupid people and those who
are not stupid but lack information. This is truly worth a read, it will open your eyes. Particularly
read the comments, and especially the three comments by "b", the zine owner:
The reality about North Korea is that the South Korean US puppets apply the same technique
on NK defectors that the British US puppets apply on Russian "KGB defectors". These poor defecting
souls found themselves in a desperate situation in their new country to which they were attracted
by stories of street paved in gold. Thus even just for food they have to invent more and more
outrageous stories to feed the propaganda machines of their South Korean/British hosts.
This is how Kim Jong Un threw his uncle to the 120 starving dogs and how Putin blew up some
Russian apartments in Buynaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk, defector's honor!
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Mark Chapman , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 2:27 am GMT
• 200 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}
Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g.
U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable
conditions of real war.
To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient
Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which
Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate
of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.
Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s
too, unofficially).
In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA
and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western
jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting
test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target
and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.
I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests,
but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted
the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing
out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and
it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft
element using current tactics.
It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the
S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric
and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry.
•
Carlton Meyer , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 2:31 am GMT
@DanC One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's insistence
on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their submarine
fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.
The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations,
not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the
world.
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how
modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of
modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.
Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to
the bottom. If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier strike groups are obsolete
against a modern navy:
If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:42 am GMT
• 300 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things
around very quickly.
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has
been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under
the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health
budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of
the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then
probably around 4.5%.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump
is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost
collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed
buddies.
Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC
waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who
oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents
can only pretend.
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning
to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the
German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then
thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.
Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you
think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT
• 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov
But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has
not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point,
elaborate on it--there are some serious nuances.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it
lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages
in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put
it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers
are copy artists, China being the master copier.
Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control
(management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example,
it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example,
Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s
are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results
in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full
Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat?
Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but,
say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate
some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these
wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?
I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this
way--viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may
create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know. Ok.
so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts
and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than
based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no
MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly
respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system
(for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported
by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry
(again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers
from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from
building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively
replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important
ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates
and adjusts for the loss of any piece.
Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck
(or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing
any other component of success?
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 am GMT
• 200 Words @Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic
conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when
it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where
the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch
site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black'
release. Not always, but often.
I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests,
but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted
the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing
out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and
it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft
element using current tactics.
It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the
S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric
and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. Very good and relevant explanation. I
would only add that what Russia has in Syria and what Syria has in Syria are not IADS then stand-alone
radars and missiles. What Russia has over Russia is IADS, especially with the new S500 (Russian
ABMD). The Russians do not develop separate systems for air-defence and missile-defence, in Russia
it is all one integrated multi-sensor system. What is completely unknown is the effectiveness
of the Western stealth techniques and jammers against the Russian IADS over Russia. What if, what
the Western airforces call the blue line, the entry space which allows you to destroy the airdefense
before being detected and destroyed, keeps changing, becomes unpredictable or disappears altogether.
What if you cannot overwhelm the airdefense with a barrage of 59 Tomahawks as in Syria, because
you would need to fire several hundred or even thousand missiles simultaneously?
If Russia implements IADS over Syria, which may be what was announced after the US cruise missile
attack, then the "blue line" for US and Israeli jets and missiles may disappear.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Bayan , April 18, 2017 at 3:51 am GMT
• 100 Words America and Russia will not go for a direct war.
The reason is simple: one is crazy the other is nuts. When crazy meets nuts sanity of both
is restored. They 'll go for a drink and head home.
I sort of drove this conclusion from a Russian poem I read years ago.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT
• 200 Words @Mark Chapman Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology
to use up budget dollars - a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency
by using less than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget
is likely to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun
development, but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.
An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be
rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the
top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems
often are unnecessarily complex - sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers - and the fiasco
of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand
on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard
of pork-barreling and design changes.
As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly
the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with - in this instance
- China's missile corvettes.
Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty
phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.
Mark, sorry but I have to disagree on the F-35 project. You are right that
any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of
pork-barreling and design changes
But it appears that even that original concept was a pie in the sky sold to the government
by a ruthless military almost-monopolistic corporation.
Firstly, the concept was unrealistic, then also the concept was too ambitious in the wrong
direction.
Unrealistic: to create one frame for different airforce roles with very different requirements
I describe as similar to creating a tank which can race on the ground, fly and submerge .
I wonder why this has never been done successfully before. But this is what LM promised to USAF
and on paper it looked fantastic and when greased with a few corrupt bucks the concept won the
decision day. The same frame and 70% of shared components between all versions, ha!
Too ambitious: instead of focusing on the firepower and maneuverability, it focused on stealth
which is relatively easily defeated with multi-sensor IADS. The designers created the best
stealth possible but at the expense of the principal plane performance: the firepower and maneuverability.
LM claims that F-35 is completely new technology and suffers from birthing pains. Although
true, this is not the crux of the problem. The whole design is back-to-the-drawing-board level
of disaster. Even US & Allies cannot afford a trillion dollars stuff-up and a decade of time lost.
In essence, the F-35 is again a good weapon only against the thirld-world opponents who cannot
defeat stealth.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
2stateshmoostate , April 18, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT
• 200 Words I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the
Russian Empire pre-1904.
After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory
by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and
got the shit kicked out of them.
On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption
and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions
are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but
also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign
powers.
Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes)
in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
But, I certainly could be wrong. •
Joe Franklin , April 18, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT
• 300 Words @mushroom When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's
blatantly obvious - which is what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's
hidden caves.
What happened to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of
this reality!
So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c...
If you want to enjoy happy days don't mess with the bear! The USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) is a
4th generation guided missile destroyer whose key weapons are Tomahawk cruise missiles with a
range of up to 2,500 kilometers, and capable of carrying nuclear explosives. This ship carries
56 Tomahawk missiles in standard mode, and 96 missiles in attack mode.
The US destroyer is equipped with the most recent Aegis Combat System. It is an integrated
naval weapons systems which can link together the missile defense systems of all vessels embedded
within the same network, so as to ensure the detection, tracking and destruction of hundreds of
targets at the same time. In addition, the USS Donald Cook is equipped with 4 large radars, whose
power is comparable to that of several stations. For protection, it carries more than fifty anti-aircraft
missiles of various types.
Meanwhile, the Russian Su-24 that buzzed the USS Donald Cook carried neither bombs nor missiles
but only a basket mounted under the fuselage, which, according to the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya
Gazeta [2], contained a Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny .
As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars,
control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer . In other
words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up – or about to be – with the defense systems
installed on NATO's most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote
control.
The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left
literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft – unarmed
– repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.
After that, the 4th generation destroyer immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.
Since that incident, which the Atlanticist media have carefully covered up despite the widespread
reactions sparked among defense industry experts, no US ship has ever approached Russian territorial
waters again.
According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved
from active service.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu , April 18, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT
• 400 Words The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.
How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take
to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this
job?
How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?
How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?
What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly
safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.
And now this:
Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.
What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular
500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?
The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies
take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must
take this into account.
Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its
power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets
to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive.
This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey
AF that has over 200 F-16.
I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer
Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign
troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup
d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian
hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar
with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was
the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature
there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State.
There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and
apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.
I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer.
•
pogohere , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT
• 300 Words @Erebus
Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
No, it cannot.
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local
currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD,
the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand,
and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print
enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough,
and so they stay where they are.
So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest
of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties.
A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of
thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.
The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring.
You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf What international
treaties has the Russian Central Bank entered into, if any?
Re: "The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring."
Yours is an odd way of interpreting this provision of the Russian Constitution:
The Constitution of the Russian Federation
Article 75 (Chapter 3)
1. The monetary unit in the Russian Federation shall be the rouble. Money issue shall be
carried out exclusively by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Introduction and issue
of other currencies in Russia shall not be allowed.
2. The protection and ensuring the stability of the rouble shall be the major task of the Central
Bank of the Russian Federation, which it shall fulfil independently of the other bodies
of state authority.
3. The system of taxes paid to the federal budget and the general principles of taxation and
dues in the Russian Federation shall be fixed by the federal law.
4. State loans shall be issued according to the rules fixed by the federal law and shall be
floated on a voluntary basis. [emphasis added]
With reference to this @p36 of the treatise cited:
"Laws need to be changed. That means that it is necessary to take the State
Duma under control. That means that a parliamentary majority is required.
And therefore, a party needs to be created that will win the general elections.
A political structure which is currently rather popular starts being created.
The majority party in the Duma now has representation sufficient to enable an amendment to
the constitution to change the above provisions, not to mention the laws pursuant to same. Whether
that is actually politically feasible is another matter.
The treatise you cited appears to be somewhat dated with regard to the constraints, if any,
on changes to central banking in Russia.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT
• 200 Words @anon That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the
Serbs flat out, "You guys are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We
are out of it.",' there would never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have
been a minor brawl between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just
another Balkan skirmish. It would have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption
of the Kaiser when he issued his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions
of lives, including his own and his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and
lost a disastrous war with Japan. That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing
him. He SHOULD have learned his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas
was an incredibly stupid man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. Tsar Nicholas
was not that stupid to not see that the aggression against Serbia was in fact directed at Russia.
The Dual Alliance of 1879, coming immediately after the Berlin Congress was directed squarely
against Russia. By the time of Nicholas it evolved in the Triple Alliance and I have no doubts
that Russians knew that Romania had adhered in secret in 1882. He could not be unaware of the
'Drang nach Osten' mentality which gripped Germany by the end of the 19th century and that the
plans for the partition of Russia were on the drawing board. He could not have been unaware that
the rejection of his proposals for disarmament has induced Germany to believe that the proposal
reflected the weakness of Russia. He could not been unaware of Moltke's proposal in 1912 for a
preventive war against Russia. He could not have been unaware that an external war was a precondition
of for the revolution.
War was imposed on Russia. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Blacktail , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT
• 200 Words The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the US - toward state-of-the-art
obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many times that number of their predecessors
are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.
That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s
and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the
early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.
The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about
5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful
and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them),
but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".
And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the
Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't
much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's
no closer to being combat-ready.
These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things
(cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending
to weakness.
•
Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT
• 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man ;) Just for
your warning – well, bit of cultural and genetical conditioning helps in this case.
As one of my grandfathers was helping in early stages of establishing
Unfortunately, I did not have chance to discuss these issues with him.
Unfortunately, depending on point view, I am not enough pragmatic for current ideologically
driven socio-economical society
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonHUN , April 18, 2017 at 7:22 am GMT
• 600 Words @Joe Wong "still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru
the thin air, why did you stop at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind,
... ? You should know fake news is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big
fake news. It depends on the area, in some things they are 30 years behind, or even 40. The USSR
collapsed in 1991 and for at least 10 years Russia had no money even to pay its soldiers. As the
Chechen debacles had shown they were in shambles. Their new projects weren't going much forward,
as you can see they resumed their 1980′s projects after 2000 when they had more oil income and
Putin made the Russian state working again (well, kind of it is still hindered by corruption,
disincentivizes citizens from being entrepreneurial (in a state where the rules can be changed
overnight at the ruler's whim (no real rule of law) and you can be a billionaire oligarch but
you can't be sure the state doesn't simple take everything from you and throw you in prison overnight,
even arranging for your "accidental" death, except the money you siphoned to foreign accounts
and real estate abroad etc.) It is mafia state, or a mafia (ex KGB) presenting itself as the state.
Of course it is more ore less true everywhere (in the US too of course), deep under the veneer
of democracy and rule of law, but in Russia it is almost open and blatant. Also the Russians don't
have any traditions of enterpreneurship, private incentive, contrary to China, which is also a
very corrupt country with a corrupt and totally nondemocratic regime (contrary to Russia which
has token Western-style democratic institutions now), but thanks to the industriousness of the
Chinese people they have risen to where they are now. Average Russians still seem to expect the
state to provide for them as it was in the USSR, they need a "Father Tsar" which is now Putin,
or they are just drinking too much and are in a rut, idk.
As for the years it was only an estimate of course, but as I said they first had to make up
for the lost decade after 1991, like finishing subs that were left unfinished since 1992 and things
like that. First really new gadgets were the Armata (and Kurganets) which is still a newcomer,
and T-50, still not an operational fighter. Regarding SAM's I must say the Russians always were
the fans of SAM's but they were ineffective in the ME and Vietnam too. Didn't stop the enemy from
achieving air superiority. I don't doubt that the S-300 /400 is much more advanced than the SAM
systems of the 60′s and 70′s were, but they would have to face a much more advanced opponent too.
Like low RCS planes that cannot be detected until they are well within the range of their air-to-surface
weapons or dozens of targets flying at 20-3o m coming in from multiple directions.
The F-35 is derided around here, the US spent a fortune on it, true. It has problems (only known
because the US is more open, you usually don't read in the media about problems with the new Chinese
or Russian planes, sure you think it is because they don't have any with them?) but it's capabilities
are something. Stealth is not some scam as some believe. It is serious business when your SAM's
or AAM's cannot lock on the damn thing even if you have a monster longwave radar that can detect
it from a few dozen miles
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT
• 200 Words @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that
there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based
on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or
Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works
for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent
well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real
technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting
accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks
to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project
experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union,
in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which
dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian
military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.
Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck
(or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing
any other component of success?
Am I missing any other component of success?
Just a possibility – or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)
It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers'
world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle
is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought,
and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version
says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
and also due to fact that:
Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development
any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part
of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the
present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms
resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation
of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
59-60).
Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.
+ learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current
Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.
•
anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:18 am GMT
• 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still,
after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible.
In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition. Your main point is well taken. PPP instead of simply
GDP captures lower costs in Russia and is a better starting point. Plus, the US military procurement
is remarkably inefficient. The combination of the two plus tacit and institutional knowledge regarding
spending on military hardware makes analysis based on US spending misleading.
However, the US is remarkably efficient in many other areas and has had the best performing
developed economy since 2008.
Regarding access to capital markets, the US over the last decade has developed a massive unconventional
oil industry. This was done with capital investment of $3 trillion. Which came from capital markets.
Not only was this unplanned, but it was done with grudging support from the Obama administration.
And it is of enormous geo strategic value. I wish to hell that our defense doctrine would plug
this new fact - US has no need for Middle East oil - into their strategy. Not to totally discount
its importance, but the idea fighting and dying for a strategic resource that can be bought or
drilled for needs to be thought out.
If we were going to refight WW 2, then we would have some problems with global supply chains,
etc. The next major war, if we have one, won't be like WW 2. The logic of a US conventional war
with Russia is stupid. Either side with a decisive conventional advantage would simply increase
the risk of it going nuclear.
Russia could, if they were so inclined, forcibly take back some of the former USSR. But why
would they want to? Even Crimea is expensive. It has taken what seems like forever to build the
Kerch Strait Bridge. They have their Naval Base and the border dispute will keep Ukraine out of
NATO. Technically, they could try it, but one of the requirements for membership is that the nation
is not involved in conflict. It's held in Georgia and Moldova.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DanC , April 18, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT
• 400 Words @Carlton Meyer If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier
strike groups are obsolete against a modern navy:
http://www.g2mil.com/navwar.htm
If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ki2-uyCHOA Great article.
Concerning wastage of resources, here's what John Patch of the USN had to say:
The Soviets debated building a significant carrier fleet in the 1960s but determined that
large carriers had no place in the nuclear age, partly because of their vulnerability to missiles
with nuclear warheads.2 While later choosing to build larger carriers, Moscow always retained
the view that carriers remained vulnerable.
It is surely significant that Russia sold or gave away all its cold war-era aircraft carriers
and retains only the hybrid aircraft-capable cruiser, Kuznetsov.
They "get" it that the role of capital surface ships is changing,, and diminishing. This is
also indicative of why the Russians will shock the first fleet that tries to engage them. They
keep their planners and developers focused on what actually matters, and serious war gaming, rather
than rigging things to provide the answer they want for careerist reasons
Note that it took the attacking general about 5 minutes using a swarm of old-generation cruise
missiles to sink enough craft to disable the fleet's networked defense and EW capacity, with crew
amounting to 20,000 on the ships sunk alone. The remaining ships were sitting ducks for the follow
up attacks.
These were subsonic cruise missiles. A bunch of moskits would have wiped everything out.
And still these fools keep spending money on carrier groups. it's noteworthy that they restarted
the war game and ordered the opposing general to stop making effective attacks. That sums up exactly
why the US keeps wasting money and doing stupid things.
__________________
As an aside, note that the CGI from the movie of an aircraft carrier attack is not realistic.
Projectiles travelling at the speeds shown would easily be destroyed or diverted by fleet defense
systems.
The new BrahMos adaptation of the Onyx missile travels at 2,800 mph. By comparison a bullet
fired from a high compression hunting rifle travels at 1,700 mph.
The ballistic missiles such as the Dong feng being developed by the Chinese, will have incoming
speeds as high as 5,000 mph.
The human eye can't actually see objects moving that fast.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joey Zaza , April 18, 2017 at 9:48 am GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Hopefully the President
of Russia will take on board your succinct and informed analysis. Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT
@reiner Tor I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians,
it's also a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.
Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with
great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them - none? a little?
a lot? a whole salt mine?
Underestimate Americans in what ? Stupidity ? Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
@reiner Tor
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher
test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Russians have already
defeated Ottomans and Turkey is NOT a tough test for Russia given Turkey invades Russia otheriwse
unlike US you don't expect Russia to go launch a war bravado against them. Reply More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT
@2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US
now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory
by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and
got the shit kicked out of them.
On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption
and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions
are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but
also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign
powers.
Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes)
in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
But, I certainly could be wrong. The war that the Japanese started pushed by the Schiff banking
cabal was ended in 1945 by the people they helped to overturn a friend of Japan, the Tsar Nicholas
II. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT
@utu The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.
How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take
to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this
job?
How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?
How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?
What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly
safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.
And now this:
Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.
What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular
500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?
The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies
take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must
take this into account.
Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its
power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets
to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive.
This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey
AF that has over 200 F-16.
I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer
Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign
troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup
d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian
hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar
with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was
the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature
there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State.
There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and
apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.
I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer. S-300 can destroy
Israeli warplanes even before they leave their airfields for sky. Do you see Russians doing it
? Why ? Because Russia and Israel have friendly relations and Russia doesn't interfere in Hezbollah
and Israelis conflict. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:48 am GMT
• 300 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I
do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that 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.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
There is a slight flaw in your comment.
Israeli used Greece's S-300 PMU-1 to prepare their F-16I pilots for potential air strikes on
Iran .
we still don't know which version went to Iran so if they practice on the S-300PMU-1 and Iran
gets the S-300VM it will be like practising on a home cat and then going against a tiger.
Even US and UK had older S-300 models with them. US has S-300PS/PMU systems at Nevada. It has
same value as figuring out Turkish F-16 from Egyptian/Pakistan/UAE/Taiwan /Korean.
But yes earlier S-300 models are not completely protected Israel succeeded where many in NATO
failed against even an old system like PMU. Regarding S-300PMU, it has been upgraded substantially
in previous years.
Its guidance system is literally unjammable unless huge resources are dedicated, ie broadband
noise jamming of the most powerful kind.
Though recently Israel announced that it is upgrading its F-16 variants external link to be
able to handle the vaunted Russian S-300 anti-aircraft system. Iran is perennially about to receive
shipments of the system. But mere intention does not mean they have managed to do so.
It was the middle of the 1990s and money was nonexistent in Russia . They sold components of
an S-300V battery to the US likely the oldest model they had that was incomplete.With the money
they made they upgraded the whole system to S-300VM or Antei-2500.So in effect the US paid for
the next generation to replace the generation that was compromised.And the S-300V was in service
in most former Soviet republics so chances were eventually they would get their hands on it anyway
at least this way they got their own funding to develop a replacement system.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
bb. , April 18, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT
• 100 Words @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps
- all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom.
Well, duh.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine
in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises
that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit
on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's
not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise
as much capital as they need.
As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's
been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities.
Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell
and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade
them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on
the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building
engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?
Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an
idiot. not treating US data seriously is obviously hyperbole, but incidentally a very on spot
one in this case.
all things being equal, you are right about market formation and capitalization. but these are
not normal times. nobody really knows whats going to happen when the shit, which is the US stock
market QE fueled ponzi scheme, hits the fan. it is very hard to take the subprime, derivative,
QE, buyback economy of the last almost 20 years seriously.
it is also false to say that zuckerbook is useless. it generates way too much money(compared to
twitter or tesla) to make that statement. in general, it is hard to estimate the value and effectiveness
of marketing expenses and facebook put a decent metric on it, better than google to some extent.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP , April 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT
• 200 Words @2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between
the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory
by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and
got the shit kicked out of them.
On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption
and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions
are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but
also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign
powers.
Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes)
in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
But, I certainly could be wrong.
I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian
Empire pre-1904.
Sorry, that's just completely wrong.
The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along
in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten
itself into World War I).
The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however,
is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources
compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American
decline that Britain didn't have.
Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's
weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically
negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian
vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the
third.
•
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
NEW!
They sold components of an S-300V battery to the US
Belarus sold the whole complex to the US, S-300V.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
• 100 WordsNEW! @Blacktail The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the
US --- toward state-of-the-art obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many
times that number of their predecessors are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.
That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s
and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the
early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.
The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about
5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful
and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them),
but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".
And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the
Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't
much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's
no closer to being combat-ready.
These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things
(cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending
to weakness.
They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not
because of age,
Sir, please, don't write things you don't know about. Pacific Fleet's Delta III (Project 667
BDR) SSBNs are in dire need of replacement, while Northern Fleet's SSBNs of Delta IV class (Project
667 BDRM) are nearing the end of life. Remaining Project 941 (Akula-class> not Typhoon) are not
even consideration for Borey-class, serving out their lives as test platforms, mostly. Borey (Project
955 and 955A) was created to replace aging Deltas.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
• 200 WordsNEW! @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that
there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based
on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or
Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works
for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent
well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real
technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting
accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks
to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project
experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union,
in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which
dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian
military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.
Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck
(or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing
any other component of success?
Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie.
This is crucial. Sure, Chemezov's or Rahmanov's salaries are huge by Russian standards (well,
by Western too) and allows the military-industrial elite to live very comfortably, to put it mildly
but the answer is the state's ownership of the whole defense sphere, from industry to doctrinal
development. Relationship between Russians and their state are dramatically different from what
most Westerners ever experienced in their relations. It was inevitable in the nation with such
military history as Russia. As I mentioned Arthur J. Alexander's "spread"–Russia does have this
pressure applied to her institutes to, in the end, become this character from Russian anecdote,
where he buys a crib for his toddler from one of the former MIC plants and after assembling it
at home gets AK-47. Russia is bound to produce (at least mostly) weapons which have to work.
Here is what Russians do, barn, of course, being a representation of Russian State;)
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they need those weapons
for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded by the US (plus
a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to interfere with NK?
Fat boy is developing missiles that will hit the USA, nuff said.
Ok a little more, he can sell those little nuclear bombs to some terrorist group, now 'nuff said!'
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT
• 100 Words @NoseytheDuke The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having
an insatiable parasite on its back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in
general whilst simultaneously plotting to undermine it.
The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in
"loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared
as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.
No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure
in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has
accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of
the Neocon Israel Firsters.
You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for
the American people, right? What a tosser! I shall refrain from returning your predictably dumb
insults.
On the topic of foreign aid and loan guarantees, you aren't well-read nor qualified to render
any opinion likely to be worth more than the pixels wasted by your fatuous lines.
First, understand the difference between actual loans and loan guarantees.
It irks you the U.S. sends foreign aid to Israel by an amount which really means not a great
deal [average, $1.86b % $310b = 0.006 of GDP], even as U.S. foreign aid finds a much wider set
of recipients. That's your emotional prerogative, one which breaches a very, very long tradition
observed by powerful nations.
There is little you or I could do about it. Alea iacta est .
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Kiza You are stupid, are you not? No, I am smarter than you, and probably better looking.
Just a guess, but an educated one, lol! •
Anon , April 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident.
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the
world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however,
such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs
half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask
yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook
or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as
most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual
services.
The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not
need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics
to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus
and the amygdala.
Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.
•
Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Erebus
Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
No, it cannot.
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local
currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD,
the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand,
and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print
enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough,
and so they stay where they are.
So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest
of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties.
A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of
thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.
The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring.
You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print
local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves.
The above is your fabrication, the link is a write out by an over zealous nationalist with
half baked truth, and the link is neither a treaty quoted by you to support your claim nor saying
there is such IMF treaty.
Most nations hardly have any hard currency reserves, yet the amount of local currency they
printed proves your "prescribed ratio" a fake news. Even those nations have hard currency reserves,
the amount of local currency they prints makes your "prescribed ratio" a Hollywood fantasy.
Putin has begun de-dollarization Russian economy long time ago, Russian has signed currency
SWAP with China, EU and Japan, so that Russian can trade without USD. China also has set up AIIB
and Alt-SWIFT for rest of the world to bypass the USD as well. Time has changed, man.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT
• 300 WordsNEW! @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps
- all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom.
Well, duh.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine
in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises
that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit
on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's
not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise
as much capital as they need.
As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's
been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities.
Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell
and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade
them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on
the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building
engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?
Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an
idiot.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments"
which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who,
as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit
here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point–structure
of GDP.
You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What
is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers
the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US
labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.
In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's
quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the
process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change
it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military
imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it)
the house of cards folds.
• Agree: Sergey Krieger •
Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anon
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the
world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however,
such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs
half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask
yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook
or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as
most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual
services.
The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need
much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live
perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and
the amygdala.
Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality. I guess what Andrei Martyanov was trying to
say that virtual is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created thru the thin
air, hence the American economy is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created
thru the thin air. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anon
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the
world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however,
such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs
half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask
yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook
or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as
most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual
services.
The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need
much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live
perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and
the amygdala.
Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.
It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter,
food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well.
Yes, valid argument which true for GB, Belgium, Holland, with their Gulf Stream protected stable
clime, but I would prefer Mediterranean area such as Greece or Balkan for that matter.
Hmm Olive oil, vine, fishing sounds nice, but anything east of Frankfurt and North of let say
Berlin in Europe, will add different perspective. Heating for winter, and shorter summer. Just
ask people in Archangelsk or Petersburg
+ Virtual reality need quite a lot of electrical power to run, not only on your computer but
in cloud as well.
In reading their article they seem to forget about the Mig-15 and Mig-17 in Korea and Vietnam,
respectively, and about the effectiveness of those SAMs in Vietnam as well.
Didn't that traitor, John McCain get downed by a SAM?
@Erebus I understand that there would be great hue and cry to take revenge.
That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic
instincts when that moment has passed.
America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's
death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest
known.
The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia
would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several
generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know
well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW,
other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every
reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.
Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear
attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would
be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to
keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them. The more likely
scenario is this: Sensing a number of strategic and tactical indicators of an impending attack,
the US launches a bolt out of the blue attack to cripple the Russian forces before they can attack.
Russian SLBMs and rail-based missiles get off a few MIRVs that take out DC and a few other major
cities (counter-force targetting is pointless after the first-strike), but no-harm no-foul since
the JEEP was executed at the time of the first-strike, so everybody who matters was saved from
harm and that pesky problem of too many idle hands in the major urban centers was finally taken
care of.
Alternatively, the Russians use EMP weapons already in orbit to take out the US grid. The US
NCA execute the SIOP. Outcome: See above.
Winning move is not to play, but the geniuses running things don't see the extintinction of
the little guy as a bug, rather as a feature.
lastnerve , April 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among
America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
I agree with what you write except that the Deep State is but a part of the Globalist (NWO)
plans for their future world.
Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT
@Kiza
It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things
around very quickly.
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has
been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under
the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health
budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of
the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then
probably around 4.5%.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump
is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost
collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed
buddies.
Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC
waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who
oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents
can only pretend.
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning
to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the
German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then
thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.
Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you
think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Hi Kiza,
I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting
categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to
deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion
based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either
at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what
Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending
has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close
to your Fed buddies.
"Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long
bond yields have been doing the opposite.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually
raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?
Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet
another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of
doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else
in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the
least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?
CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international
use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower),
the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.
The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to
aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows
out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.
Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's
decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value
during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings
imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.
The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give
the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status?
I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance
of such status requires a far more diversified economy.
When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners,
then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll
have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously
since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know
with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".
Best
Avery, April 18, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic
conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when
it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where
the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch
site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black'
release. Not always, but often.
I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests,
but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted
the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing
out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and
it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft
element using current tactics.
It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the
S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric
and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. {I guess much of it boils down to
how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test
took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse
phase. }
I don't doubt the veracity of the claim in the article. All I was commenting on was this sentence
of the author of the article: {From people who serve on it, and I quote:" mind boggling
capabilities".}
Traditionally Soviets/Russians have do spend more of their resources on defense, particularly
anti-air. Their anti-air missiles have a solid track record: the highly competent USAF – in personnel,
and training, and technology – lost lots and lots of equipment to Soviet SAMs in Viet Nam. Even
high-flying B52 were not safe.
Also, Egyptians shot down lots of Israeli jets with Soviet AAs during the Yom Kippur war .
So there is no doubt in my mind that S-300/S-400 are very capable systems. But the phrase
'mind boggling' is a bit of a hyperbole.
What is it based on? engineering specifications and simulated tests.
I have a bit of a technical background (commercial, not military).
We'd simulate all sorts real-life conditions in testing the product, but as soon as it was sent
out, humans managed to find some sequence that crashed the system. You just can't simulate the
randomness of the real world.
If and when the S-400 is used in anger, then we'll see if its capabilities are 'mind boggling'
. Until then, it's just conjecture.
Seamus Padraig, April 18, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@LondonBob Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities,
interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating
over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional
imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous
to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline.
Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.
We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.
We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.
True, but it can be effective as a propaganda technique nevertheless. Orwell referred to it
as 'doublethink'.
iffen, April 18, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT
@Sam Shama
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Hi Kiza,
I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting
categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to
deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion
based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what
Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending
has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close
to your Fed buddies.
"Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond
yields have been doing the opposite.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually
raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?
Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet
another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of
doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else
in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the
least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?
CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international
use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower),
the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.
The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to
aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows
out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.
Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's
decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value
during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings
imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.
The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give
the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status?
I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance
of such status requires a far more diversified economy.
When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then
the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have
far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously
since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know
with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".
Best Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements.
Who gets to define "least desirable"?
I know that you are not talking about IAM members.
A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do
you have in mind?
ThatDamnGood , April 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT
@Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12
The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless
social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that
you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP
and GNP tabulations.
Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing
on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected
and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude
would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral
was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval
and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first
and foremost and that was that.
I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did
I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers
at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were
non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.
Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the
event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident
(USS Donald Cook).
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Come on! While serving in Africa,
I saw the US Marines, and, and, well, not many whites were visible! Mostly minorities, specially
Hispanics, and Blacks, so there goes your argument; same for the Army. So Hush! (The AF is the
only service with majority whites). The Navy, lots of Philippinos.
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT
@Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12
The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless
social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that
you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP
and GNP tabulations.
Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing
on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected
and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude
would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral
was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval
and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first
and foremost and that was that.
I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did
I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers
at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were
non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.
Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the
event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident
(USS Donald Cook).
Cheers- There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying over one of the US carriers.
Here is one such case:
There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking
through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS
Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums–a complete baloney, of
course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down radars".
Here I discuss a little bit the issue.
@iffen Nah, you are still the greatest idiot on unz
And the field of competition is not that weak.
And a weak sister chimes in. •
Timur The Lame, April 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
@ Smoothiex12,
Thank you for the information. I shall look up your post regarding the Donald Cook incident.
Your take on it would be news to me as it did seem to be disabled, though I only read relatively
superficial accounts.
As ThatDamnGood pointed out (thanks) it was indeed the Kitty Hawk incident that escaped my
recollection. I know that these type incidents occur but it was something about the aforementioned
case that stuck in my mind, the super low altitude I think.
Time for a revisit and a memory tonic. But then again even Kasparov eventually lost to Deep
Blue.
Cheers-
Seminumerical, April 18, 2017 at 9:59 pm GMT
@AtomAnt "Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"
Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft
carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing
3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A
Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".
I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.
Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central
bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They
insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia
is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general
said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.
Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector
wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin. Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable.
But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile
or torpedo. So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability. •
inertial, April 18, 2017 at 11:03 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments"
which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who,
as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit
here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point--structure
of GDP.
You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What
is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers
the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US
labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.
In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's
quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the
process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change
it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military
imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it)
the house of cards folds. Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned
my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I
can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct
sets.)
And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well
come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are
working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless
cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an
investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the
"real" economy like GM.
Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally
don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or
"fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have
to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems?
Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big?
Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest
of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy,
which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.
Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then
I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid
point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen
to cranks.
Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT
@ondrej Am I missing any other component of success?
Just a possibility - or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)
It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers'
world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle
is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought,
and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version
says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
and also due to fact that:
Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development
any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part
of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the
present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms
resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation
of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
59-60).
Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.
+ learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current
Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.
learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view
I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it
personally because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things.
After starting to learn a new language I would think – I had no idea that lego could be arranged
this way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether
it also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person.
Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps".
Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
@Z-man And a weak sister chimes in. I provided a link about North Korea to
a blog which could educate you about it. But you still persisted with your original bull. This
is a clear characteristic of an idiot, because the uninformed inform and correct themselves. And
yes, there is a strong competition here at unz for the title of King of All Idiots.
Here it is again, one last time, The Reason for North Korea's Nuclear Program and Its Unrequited
Offers to End It : http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html#more
On North Korea, the US chefs cook up their usual menu of bullshit and bombs ,
whilst the latest chef being the most prolific on both.
Seraphim, April 19, 2017 at 12:11 am GMT
@AP
I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire
pre-1904.
Sorry, that's just completely wrong.
The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along
in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten
itself into World War I).
The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however,
is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources
compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American
decline that Britain didn't have.
Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's
weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically
negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian
vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the
third.
Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia
on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The declaration of war against France
followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium neutrality.
Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17. •
NoseytheDuke, April 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
@iffen Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable
elements.
Who gets to define "least desirable"?
I know that you are not talking about IAM members.
A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do
you have in mind?
One that focuses on the defence of the nation?
The Alarmist, April 19, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT
@Sam Shama
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Hi Kiza,
I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting
categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to
deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion
based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what
Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending
has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close
to your Fed buddies.
"Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond
yields have been doing the opposite.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually
raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?
Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet
another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of
doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else
in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the
least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?
CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international
use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower),
the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.
The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to
aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows
out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.
Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's
decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value
during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings
imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEXCHUS
The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give
the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status?
I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance
of such status requires a far more diversified economy.
When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then
the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have
far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously
since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know
with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".
Best
""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and
long bond yields have been doing the opposite."
US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from
time to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US
every few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the
past couple of decades.
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad,
which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury
bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 4:12 am GMT
@The Alarmist
""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long
bond yields have been doing the opposite."
US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from time
to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US every
few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the past couple
of decades.
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad,
which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury
bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ... ad nauseum.
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression
abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow
into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse,
repeat ad nauseum.
"Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that
most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The
number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks"
which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official
statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and
all.
I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at
government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality
moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .
Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date
when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously
good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that
Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear
war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now
imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so
called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after
for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just
needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they
are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment
of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.
Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT
@Kiza
learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view
I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it personally
because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things. After
starting to learn a new language I would think - I had no idea that lego could be arranged this
way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether it
also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person.
Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps". One could say that to certain degree it is disadvantage
for English to be lingua-franca.
In many ways it is also most abused language in world. All speakers bring to English their
language frameworks.
One could conclude that English native speakers became more accustomed – to be more tolerant
for non-precise meanings or statements of others to certain degree – due to many non-native English
speakers. Therefore it is not that obvious for them.
I think, speakers of other languages would often not accept such improper usage of words or
grammar in their language – (thinking) because by language we think.
Combine that with euphemisms and political correctness and you have recepy for disaster in
communication.
Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT
@inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned
my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I
can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct
sets.)
And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well
come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are
working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless
cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an
investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the
"real" economy like GM.
Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally
don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or
"fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have
to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems?
Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big?
Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest
of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy,
which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.
Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then
I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid
point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen
to cranks.
The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.
Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably,
usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.
Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space
for that matter.
So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-)
Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT
@Ondrej
The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.
Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably,
usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.
Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space
for that matter.
So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-) In theory,
the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed
to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support the real economy. In reality, the Western
financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have turned into a leach draining blood out of
the real economy, much worse than central planning. •
Frederic Bastiat , April 19, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
@inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned
my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I
can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct
sets.)
And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well
come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are
working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless
cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an
investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the
"real" economy like GM.
Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally
don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or
"fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have
to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems?
Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big?
Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest
of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy,
which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.
Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then
I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid
point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen
to cranks.
Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that
it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before
you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these
services, and why.
The financial sector is a fraud. It is a parasitic industry that only sucks tax payers money
in the long run.
Nassim Taleb is spot on regarding the financial industry:
@Kiza In theory, the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient
allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support
the real economy. In reality, the Western financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have
turned into a leach draining blood out of the real economy, much worse than central planning.
In theory , the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of
investments, as opposed to central planning.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
I know theory, but there is empirical evidence that it does not, see Taleb for that matter,
or Schumpeter in my comment 165.
Schumpeter is worth to read , as he argues, logically, in case of market equilibrium = fair
prices interest would approach to zero, and it ceases to be incentive for financing innovation.
And this leads us back to Marx`s theory of simple reproduction as his main argument in Kapital
Volume I. which create a problem for system.
As for Central economy, you would be probably surprised – at least I was surprised,
that it was in fact J.V. Stalin who critiqued too much of Central planning. He was warning in
50. that it would block next development of system. in his book Economical problems of socialism.
You mention your experience with socialistic system, in case you want to refresh your memory
or get better than propagandistic (from right or left) view of Marx . I advise David Harwey lectures
on youtube.
Kiza , April 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT
@Kiza
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression
abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow
into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse,
repeat ad nauseum.
"Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that
most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The
number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks"
which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official
statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and
all.
I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at
government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality
moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .
Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date
when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously
good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that
Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear
war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now
imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so
called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after
for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just
needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they
are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment
of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.
Here I quote a funny comment from a guy on zerohedge. This is how the Western economies have been
operating:
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your
brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so
that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company
secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your
listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow
to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided
with the release. The public then buys your bull.
AP, April 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT
@Seraphim Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It
declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The
declaration of war against France followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium
neutrality.
Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17.
Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia
on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg.
It declared war first, after Russia had mobilized and refused to turn back its mobilization.
Germany would not and should not have waited until huge masses of Russian troops had actually
crossed its border before declaring war.
The sad events of the 20th century in some ways can be seen as a tragic, Old Testament style
story of sin and brutal retribution. Serbia committed regicide, and lost 25% of its population
in the ensuing war. Nicholas II, a decent but foolish man, supported the regicidal regime and
was himself murdered, along with his family. The peoples of the Russian Empire didn't stop that
crime, and suffered the millions dead under Bolshevism. Wilhelm sent Lenin to Russia and lost
his own throne. The peoples of Central Europe abandoned the Habsburgs and suffered decades of
Nazism, Communism and war. Such was the sad fate of the former Holy Alliance.
ANOSPH , April 19, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying
over one of the US carriers. Here is one such case:
There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking
through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS
Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums--a complete baloney,
of course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down
radars". Here I discuss a little bit the issue.
Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian
system is due for a collapse?
Part 1: Part 2:
I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his
words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."
Andrei Martyanov, •
Website April 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
@Seminumerical Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable. But the US have
a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo.
So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability.
But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with
a missile or torpedo
Not against peer. Dynamics there is very different than it would have been with some adversary
as Iran. Unless the "disproportionate" response becomes nuclear, what is a definition of "disproportionate".
I can tell you what may happen if one of the CVNs sunk and this is not my idea but of former Chief
Of Naval Operations late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt: the psychological demoralizing impact will be overwhelming
and that is what may push a political (and suicidal) decision on nuclear response. In purely conventional
framework–the game may become very different. To have some (however disagreeable from purely tactical
point of view) primer on one of very many scenarios, you may try Naval War College Newport Papers,
especially #20.
I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his
words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."
Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian
system is due for a collapse?
My attitude to Strelkov is similar to my attitude to clowns or not-adequate people. Having
said all that, Russia does face some serious economic challenges which are of purely domestic
origins and I never hid my reserved attitude to Putin (despite all his achievements) because of
the fact him being an economic "liberal" and surrounding himself in economic block with a bunch
of Gaidar-worshipping hacks. Medvedev's government is an affront to overwhelming majority of Russian
people.
Sam Shama, April 19, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT
@Kiza
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression
abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow
into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse,
repeat ad nauseum.
"Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that
most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The
number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks"
which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official
statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and
all.
I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at
government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality
moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .
Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date
when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously
good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that
Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear
war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now
imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so
called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after
for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just
needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they
are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment
of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.
Hey Kiza,
I base my views on data and economic theory generally accepted in the West. If one summarily
dismisses these instruments of analyses then, of course, all conclusions derived are rejectable.
Which is what you are doing. Fine.
Simply deeming our system fraudulent and built on myth amounts to a meaningless unfalsifiable
assertion. Unfalsifiable, since the collapse event dangles always in the undefined "future".
His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future,
that discrete events do not exist.
I thought you were using past experience to assert with high confidence that the West is headed
for a repeat of Weimar Has there been a total destruction of productive capacity which eluded
my reverie?
Data for prediction [at least parameter estimation of any system] is always from the past.
I am not aware of any data from the future, is anyone? I don't claim a system superior without
subjecting it to out-of-sample and live outcomes. Some Western models have failed recently [pure
Rational Expectations models, e.g.]while others have succeeded with flying colours [New Keynesian
Models]. What good is any theory or claim without corroborating empirical evidence? To me, claims
of our economies headed to a collapse, because because well BIG DEBT! WEIMAR! FALSE STATISTICS!
etc are just emotional outbursts devoid of any internally consistent theory, let alone the utter
absence of evidence since the whole trope started in 2008.
Alarmist: you stated earlier that inflation stats are misleading. I am perfectly willing to
accept that statement if it were supported by facts. If during your visits to supermarkets, shops,
online purchases you found your favourite items costing more, that in itself is no reason to conclude
inflation is at hand. I do shop, and a great deal in point of fact :-), and I've noticed that
prices of computers, e.g. have fallen continuously and dramatically. What about rent inflation?
Or transportation? Rent inflation stands at levels much lower than averages from the past 70 years
and transportation costs have fallen greatly as well [Air travel as a percentage of median per
capita income]. Do you deny these? Trouble arises when people take these things for granted, and
only complain about (mostly) food items that have gone up in price ["I hate these prices for eggs!
Back in my childhood, a dozen cost only a penny!"]
If you don't believe in official CPI/Core PCE, look at the MIT Billion Prices Index, which
provides one with real-time inflation from literally a billion prices from online markets which
operate globally. Those indices substantially tell the same story: inflation has been heading
down!
Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China
(without causing a global nuclear war).
How is he going to regime change Russia? It's a pipe dream. Putin is immensely popular and
in my reckoning, he is simply negotiating spheres of influence with USA.
China, well they are joined to the US at the hip!. The U.S. is only looking for China to wean
away from its mercantilist stance and start buying our goods and services.
Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land).
Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under
the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily
ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick
system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer.
Russia is a vastly endowed nation with a gifted population. The climate isn't all that balmy,
shall we say. Her natural resources are the assets of her citizens to do with them as they deem
optimal.
I'll go along with your hypothetical scenario in which Putin is unseated and a new Yeltsin
is installed. I would consider that outcome both undesirable and approaching a vanishingly low
probability. You'll need to convince me of its plausibility and DT's desire to bring about such
an outcome.
This four seasons theory looks to me like some king of amateur dialectics...
80 years is close to Kondratiev cycles length.
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years. ..."
"... This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter. ..."
"... In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control. ..."
"... We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure. ..."
"... One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline. ..."
"... The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand. ..."
Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues
that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the
most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years.
This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians,
makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be
divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies
have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary
as spring, summer, fall and winter.
Few books have been as central to the worldview of Mr. Bannon, a voracious reader who tends to
see politics and policy in terms of their place in the broader arc of history.
But what does the book tell us about how Mr. Bannon is approaching his job as President Trump's
chief strategist and what he sees in the country's future? Here are some excerpts from the book,
with explanations from The New York Times.
'Winter Is Coming,' and We'd Better Be Prepared
History is seasonal, and winter is coming. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake.
Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, one commensurate
with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World
War II. The risk of catastrophe will be high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil
violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule.
The "Fourth Turning" authors, William Strauss and Neil Howe, started using that phrase before
it became a pop culture buzzword courtesy of HBO's "Game of Thrones." But, as the authors point out,
some winters are mild. And sometimes they arrive late. The best thing to do, they say, is to prepare
for what they wrote will be "America's next rendezvous with destiny."
In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of
it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who
is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage.
This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border
control.
The 'Deconstruction of the Administrative State,' and Much More, Is Inevitable
The Fourth Turning will trigger a political upheaval beyond anything Americans could today imagine.
New civic authority will have to take root, quickly and firmly - which won't be easy if the discredited
rules and rituals of the old regime remain fully in place. We should shed and simplify the federal
government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling
its core infrastructure.
The rhythmic, seasonal nature of history that the authors identify foresees an inevitable period
of decay and destruction that will tear down existing social and political institutions. Mr. Bannon
has famously argued that the overreaching and ineffective federal government - "the administrative
state," as he calls it - needs to be dismantled. And Mr. Trump, he said, has just begun the process.
As Mr. Howe said in an interview with The Times: "There has to be a period in which we tear down
everything that is no longer functional. And if we don't do that, it's hard to ever renew anything.
Forests need fires, and rivers need floods. These happen for a reason."
'The American Dream Is Dead'
James Truslow Adams (wrote) of an 'American Dream' to refer to this civic faith in linear advancement.
Time, they suggested, was the natural ally of each successive generation. Thus arose the dogma of
an American exceptionalism, the belief that this nation and its people had somehow broken loose from
any risk of cyclical regress . Yet the great weakness of linear time is that it obliterates time's
recurrence and thus cuts people off from the eternal - whether in nature, in each other, or in ourselves.
One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture -
has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving
belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss
over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies
into decline.
Though he probably did not intentionally invoke Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, Mr. Trump was channeling
their thesis when he often said during his campaign, "The American dream is dead." One of the scenarios
the book puts forward is one in which leaders who emerge during a crisis can revive and rebuild dead
institutions. Mr. Trump clearly saw himself as one of these when he said his goal would be to bring
back the American dream.
Conform, or Else
In a Fourth Turning, the nation's core will matter more than its diversity. Team, brand, and standard
will be new catchwords. Anyone and anything not describable in those terms could be shunted aside
- or worse. Do not isolate yourself from community affairs . If you don't want to be misjudged,
don't act in a way that might provoke Crisis-era authority to deem you guilty. If you belong to a
racial or ethnic minority, brace for a nativist backlash from an assertive (and possibly authoritarian)
majority.
The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome
of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or
refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude
raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty
his administration might demand.
300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
"Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive
and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world.
But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple
times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world
is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term.
At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses,
loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators
can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never
be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there
is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.
To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point
the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford
anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their
hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership
100 Words
@dearieme
"Funny patriotism where they're most revved up to kill other Koreans". You
could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up to kill
fellow Britons.
{You could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up
to kill fellow Britons.}
You could also say that about the 4 year long
US Civil War.
Both sides considered themselves very patriotic Americans, yet were revved
up to kill each other to a total of about 785,000-1,000,000 KIA. Considering
US population was about 20-25 million around then, that was huge number of
dead.
"... What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. ..."
"... Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. ..."
"... Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? ..."
"... Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran? ..."
100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the
civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian
populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:
Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria
BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.
100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington DC are eager to go to war. They are
just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a nation of their choosing.
If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is happening now with Syria and what
happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump has sold them out and is increasingly
acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.
It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle Class nor American manufacturing
to truly "Make American Great Again".
Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what
few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.
Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than we admit. We are both deeply unhappy
with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public
expense.
The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to terminal decline?
100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened
there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people
on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people
who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
Wizard of Oz ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:17
am GMT
100 Words What is your view of David Kilcullen, what he knows about, and what his views are worth? No doubt "modified" or
" qualified" respect but it is the qualifications and the reasons for them that I am interested in. When I've got round tobfinishing
his article saying Assad is desperate and losing I'll probably be back.
Anon ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT
Get a load of this a ** hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.
He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.
But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney
& Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite
medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead
of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping
& torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it
on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot
at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown
up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping
sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi
backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos
in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions
to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet
domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short
distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian
secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta
war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks
supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only
a few days later."
By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy
& dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major
US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline
from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.
What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by
the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could
not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American
zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states.
Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American
is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that the Constitution is disregarded
once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses
it just as Bush did to justify an illegal war.
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use
the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the
stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling
as for the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from
the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power
for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the
country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a
real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.
@Carlton Meyer
Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria
BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.
Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for
Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel
Lobby agenda vs Syria for regime change to weaken Iran:
More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing Trump to push the Israel Lobby
agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:
@Sean Russia
was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE!
I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.
It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures
and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated.
Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad.
Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was
fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along?
Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up,
N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia.
He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem
for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More LOL:
geokat62 Troll:
L.K ,
Rurik
@Brabantian
Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney
& Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can
invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their
accusations:
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead
of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping
& torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it
on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot
at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown
up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping
sarin gas on orphanages ... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi
backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos
in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions
to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet
domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short
distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian
secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta
war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks
supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death
only a few days later."
By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy
& dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major
US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline
from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria. Sarin is a nerve agent
and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed to protect anyone.
Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
There is no reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda affiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscribe to the popular contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?
Is it possible that Trump and Putin cooked up this little show simply to give Trump more credibility in his approaching confrontation
with North Korea?
Z-man ,
April 18, 2017 at 2:53
pm GMT
@Anon Get
a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.
He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.
But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs
And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more
innocents.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. What's the common denominator to these two ??????
"Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to
celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the
"evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official
story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting
step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control
that area.
Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated
with al Qaeda in planning this event.
100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had
WMD?
New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had
tried hard to conceal one."
Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining
is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."
Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell
lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "
200 Words @Wizard
of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,
I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army has mounted multiple strategic
victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.
The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir of enhanced military power which
has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and ISIS on multiple fronts.
It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force the hand of the US military
to enter the fray against him.
I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation of Russia in providing any assistance
the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against ISIS.
One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the
gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable
door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for
the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the
upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for
the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's
people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real
defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what
they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea,
ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted
up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed
with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.
Read More
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find it by looking at CNN / ZNN.
100 Words NEW!
@Wizard of Oz
Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria
and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree
that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on
Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened.
Read More
@Quartermaster
Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite
destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Putin is so
bad for Russia that the Russians overwhelmingly support him.
600 Words @Jeff
Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the
"evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official
story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting
step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who
control that area.
After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting his questions with comment
on the rapidity with which "assessments were made." (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department
"guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join
the US in constraining their commerce with states the USA does not like.)
Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments were made:
"We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical
attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and
we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it
right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action
based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president
have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "
Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment as conclusive. Then he
escalated the discussion:
"What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling this a fabrication, the entire
event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal with that?"
To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:
They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion that we cannot reveal.
That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw
the open source photos, so we had reality on our side. "
So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr. Postol examined exhaustively, but
reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering
the Syrian government as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."
Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its sixth or seventh version of the
story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant
"into Russian . . . .")
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the
gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable
door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for
the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the
upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for
the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's
people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real
defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise
that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert
and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist
control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. Read
More Agree: Z-man
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names.
Read More utu ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:43
pm GMT
200 Words @The
Anti-Gnostic How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names. It's not about proving things. It is about narrative
control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that
bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing
instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's
intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media
can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want
to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey,
Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?
Read More Sean ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:49
pm GMT
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what
they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW)
have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted
up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed
with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in
the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the
idea that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.
even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you,
Phil, because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.
It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be
costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad
must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the
target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are
(or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop
assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.
Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?
There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of
which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence"
and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National
Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence
nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both
documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting
that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their
word for anything?
Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely
from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind
the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified
source or method.
And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother
knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then
it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive
in this context.
Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate
with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal"
bullshit. Great.
The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit.
Read More
@utu It's
not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish
report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that
Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means,
right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al
Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report.
So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in
the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid
guys you pay extra, right? Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post
truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence.
Read More Z-man ,
April 18, 2017 at 7:12
pm GMT
100 Words @Jeff
Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form
of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down
Saddam and now threatens Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad -- is US/Zionist
covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting
in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the
7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.
What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and
overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist
control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project.
@bike-anarchist
Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you.
I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. You found it impudent for
me calling Russian media and Russia's propaganda machine inept and indolent? You must be one of those who drank Putin's Kool-Aid
and is now patiently awaiting his 2nd coming and saving us all from the grips of the NWO, right?
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments Svigor ,
April 18, 2017 at 7:20
pm GMT
400 Words I think the take-home point for anyone who does his own thinking is that Trump acted so quickly (36 hours) that
the evidence should be overwhelming and incontrovertible. The evidence forthcoming has been shit. Ergo, it seems very clear that
Trump had no valid reason to act as he did.
What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations?
Either the area is full of innocent civilians, or it's an al-Qaeda stronghold.
Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there
backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people
on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people
who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
The Russians are going to need a lot more than counter-propaganda. I trust them even less than I trust western Big Media. Hard
evidence or go home.
Agent76, nobody who will trust globalresearch.ca needs to have their link cited, they'll know about it already, being Konspiracy
Kooks. Nobody else is gonna buy that junk.
Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port.
Illegal, schmellegal. It's perfectly legit realpolitik. If Ukraine didn't want Russia taking back what was hers, she shouldn't
have jumped into bed with hostile powers. Seriously, if you'd asked a Ukrainian on independence day what would happen in the current
circumstances, they could have painted you an accurate picture.
"We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical
attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and
we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it
right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action
based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president
have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "
Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very
strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country
who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.
I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news all the time.
When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had launched an anthrax attack against
our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .
Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed , I felt defrauded by those who I
had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of war and peace.
In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax
attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.
If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?
I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst
complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country
tens of trillions of dollars.
There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.
Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent families who have suffered
on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.
Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger.
100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between bites of chocolate cake, they
are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.
Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria
There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops are fighting and dying for
Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.
"iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in. always trying to slip one in
Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you
to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.
BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War.
Read More
There are three basic configurations in which these agents are stored. The first are self-contained munitions like projectiles,
cartridges, mines, and rockets; these can contain propellant and/or explosive components. The next form are aircraft-delivered
munitions. This form never has an explosive component.[41] Together they comprise the two forms that have been weaponized and
are ready for their intended use. The U.S. stockpile consisted of 39% of these weapon ready munitions. The final of the three
forms are raw agent housed in one-ton containers. The remaining 61%[41] of the stockpile was in this form.[56] Whereas these
chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature,[41][57] the sulfur mustards H, and HD freeze in temperatures below
55 °F (12.8 °C). Mixing lewisite with distilled mustard lowers the freezing point to −13 °F (−25.0 °C).[48]
Higher temperatures are a bigger concern because the possibility of an explosion increases as the temperatures rise. A fire
at one of these facilities would endanger the surrounding community as well as the personnel at the installations.[58] Perhaps
more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training.[59] The Oak Ridge National
Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies,[60]
and the effectiveness of expedient, in-place shelters.[61]
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the idea
that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.
even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you, Phil,
because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.
It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be
costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad
must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the
target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are
(or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop
assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.
Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?
There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which
read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and
even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National
Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence
nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both
documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting
that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their word
for anything?
Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from
satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the
attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified
source or method.
And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother
knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then
it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive
in this context.
Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate
with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal" bullshit.
Great.
The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit. " like clearing out heavily fortified
urban areas.."
100 Words @DB
Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil
war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian
populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=22s It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera
before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible,
given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable
evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.
Read More
200 Words @Anon
None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.
But it doesn't.
There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you
are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited.
Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013.
Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions
of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream
media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.
Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred,
our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e.
Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house
in Coventry, England. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
100 Words @anonymous
It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures
and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated.
Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster
think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise?
Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment
politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being
an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits,
that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but
with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . . Read More
200 Words How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king! It come back. People
ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support the new version to build another lie.
That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they found that they found gas chemical"
I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"
Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured chem s or make attack it possible"
Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above the desert of Iran proving
they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him
or his surrogate next time " Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
@Philip Giraldi
Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle
East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo
al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the
evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident
of Australia.
What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions
with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Read More SolontoCroesus ,
April 18, 2017 at 9:19
pm GMT
100 Words @utu
It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative.
One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this
report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they
have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications
between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor
report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's
fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for
being stupid guys you pay extra, right?
One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it
is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.
According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality"
of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later."
100 Words @Brewer
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the
Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in
the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later
than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,
Is there a link to the video ?
Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets, as well as ISIS were leaked information
as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the chemical event well beforehand.
This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.
My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement.
Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ?
300 Words It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile.
A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus
narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs.
Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which
he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope, no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending
to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a
way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators
by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite
their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable
succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to
the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back
to' Department of War.' Read More
100 Words @Brewer
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the
Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in
the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later
than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am.
200 Words @Orville
H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless.
. . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits,
that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but
with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .
With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. .
Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.
I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position to force a major war between
the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..
.. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse Samson option
I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et al) who have nukes, have them all
trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.
and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western world as well- I really don't
think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora
would be able to take control of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.
the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace
100 Words @Incitatus
It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam
dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative.
OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which
he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope, no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending
to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a
way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators
by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite
their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable
succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to
the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back
to' Department of War.'
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.
that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the cannibals and crucifying head slicers
to a stable government with a viable middle class.
"We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were
backed by Iran,"
Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old Testament vengeance and unimaginable
suffering. It is written.
They literally thrive on that shit
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47
nope
it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly to the day from Trump's attack
on Syria.
Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you
to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.
BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War. Pretty sure the Commies had
Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it. Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the
way you mean since you have to go through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.
If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors
that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.
Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold
medal of international victimhood?
And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would
make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?
All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.
Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the
Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they
waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?
October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework
document on North Korea's nuclear program.
"... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
"... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
"... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
"... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
"... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
"... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
"... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
"... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
"... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
"... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
"... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
"... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
"... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
"... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
"... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
"... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
"... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
"... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
"... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have
any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless
nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.
The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical
nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.
But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast
China, including the capital, Beijing.
China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next
door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range
missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and
hard to identify and knock out.
This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to
mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.
A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its
air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man
army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide
attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan
and Kunsan.
North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots,
ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.
Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for
which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking
on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.
US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10
billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize
reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military
conscription might have to be re-introduced.
Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that
action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.
The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer
headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).
The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger
on our side in today's world is mind blowing.
" Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some
people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.
Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?
Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that
does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.
How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long
way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.
It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the
people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard
to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.
Peace - Art
p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."
North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast
at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold
shoulder.
History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous
courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting
a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the
US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.
@bob sykes Any
discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important
actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.
China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese.
If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.
To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with
with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy
the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.
Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons
and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside.
It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the
peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.
America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded
Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point
that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training
and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to
maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.
We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and
losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic
in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and
we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.
What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.
{We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }
Almost true.
Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.
Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above
the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.
By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units
were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly
** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.
So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).
--
* Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
** Heroic defense of Bastogne.
And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to
go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.
A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance
to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.
An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia
wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.
The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and
also wanted to use them in Vietnam.
North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China
has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't
won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in
Vietnam.}
This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.
Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy
anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.
As to nukes.
China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.
First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.
POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy
generals.
Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there
was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
--
* targeted deliberately: war crimes.
'" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."
With this porky pie,
Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.
And .
With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.
Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state',
'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .
B.S. --
Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus'
long ago.
Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as
the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.
As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has
just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe
Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American
can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One
issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this
leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president
would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums
and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but
a super salesman.
While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the
volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.
The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world
he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world
stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).
The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks.
Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct.
With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really.
It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."
To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America
and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's
super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad.
In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes
whatever....
Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War.
It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell
of it.
Since taking office, Trump has rapidly expanded US military operations in Yemen. Last month, the
US reportedly launched more than 49 strikes across the country -- more strikes than the US has ever
carried out in a single year in Yemen. The US has also resumed some weapons sales to the Saudis,
after the transfers were frozen by President Obama amid concerns about mounting civilian casualties
in Yemen. For more, we speak with longtime investigative reporter Allan Nairn.
TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN: With the attacks, from Syria to Mosul in Iraq to Yemen, it wasn't -- what? --
eight days before -- after Donald Trump was inaugurated that the US Navy SEAL strike happened
in Yemen. Something like 25 civilians were killed, many of them children. And perhaps the reason
we know about it is because a US Navy SEAL was killed. That US Navy SEAL's father, William Owens,
refused to meet President Trump, who surprised Owens when he came to Dover Air Base with his daughter
Ivanka, his son's body brought to the base. He was harshly critical of the raid. Mr. Owens said,
"Why did he have to do this now, to move so quickly in his administration?" Can you talk about
that first attack, if it was the first attack, and what it means to talk about these attacks as
presidential initiation rites?
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, first, the particulars of that attack, that attack was aimed to be targeting
al-Qaeda, a local al-Qaeda affiliate. It's worth noting that in Syria many of the rebels, who
the US has been backing and arming and training, often conduct joint operations with al-Nusra,
the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. And, indeed, a good number of them have joined up with al-Nusra.
But on this raid, it took place in a context of a broader war and a broader assault, which on
-- on Yemen, on the Houthi armed rebel movement in Yemen, by Saudi Arabia. And in these raids,
the Saudis are using US planes. They're using US bombs. There are actually US personnel sitting
in the Saudi Air Force headquarters, helping them with targeting. And the Saudis are systematically
targeting Yemeni civilians. After one particularly egregious and especially widely reported massacre
on a funeral gathering, the US admonished the Saudis. They criticized them. They temporarily froze
and pulled back a bit of their aid. But now, under Trump, again, it's full speed ahead with assaults
on civilian targets by the Saudis in -- in Yemen.
And if you look at the press, including outlets like MSNBC, various press outlets that are
considered to be liberal, one of the main arguments they make is that a US action is good when
it pleases the Saudis. They always -- there's this constant line of criticism, which has been
going on for decades, criticism against US presidents who are considered to be too soft at a given
moment. And that criticism is: You're letting down our Middle Eastern allies, i.e. you're letting
down the Saudis. The journalists will say, "I've just been in the Middle East, and I've been talking
to our allies there," i.e. the Saudis, the Gulf states, "and they're very unhappy, because they
think the US is not showing enough credibility. We're letting them down" -- i.e. the US isn't
being violent enough. And that's the context in which this attack on Yemen by the Special Forces
took place.
As to why Trump authorized it in that way, I think a very important motivating factor, that
is really underestimated by people, especially scholars, is the extent to which, when you have
power, when you're the king, a lot of the motivation for violence, for war, it's not just interest.
A lot of the motivation is fun, is thrill, is getting a charge out of ordering violence, and thrilling
the public, exciting the courtiers around you, exciting the press around you. The recent reaction
to the Syria attack is a very good example of that. I think to really understand how big powers
operate, when it comes to going out and killing people, I mean, don't just study their concrete
interests, like, you know, mineral exports and geopolitics. Also study Shakespeare. Study the
the whims of kings, because that's what a lot of it is about. And if you look back at the debates
in the campaign between Clinton and Trump, when they were talking about the violent system, they
they did not disagree at all about the US right to commit aggression, about the US right to kill
civilians. What they did disagree about was how those decisions would be made. Clinton invoked
the traditional establishment criteria that I discussed before of, yes, you can bomb, but you
can only kill up to 25 civilians with your bombing run. Trump invoked a different standard, saying,
"I'll attack whenever the hell I feel like it." Both of them allow the killing of civilians, which
is a crime.
AMY GOODMAN: And Trump saying, "I was just continuing what President Obama started"?
ALLAN NAIRN: In that sense, Trump does have a point, because it was Obama who started the support
of the Saudi attack on -- in Yemen and the general policy of US sending -- doing its own military-CIA
strikes in Yemen. And, of course, US support for the Saudi order and dominance in the region and
for their violence goes back for many decades. And it's also the case that Clinton would probably
have done this strike on the Syria airfield, just as Trump did. In fact, a day or so before, she
gave an interview to The New York Times where she was recommending strikes on the Syrian airfields.
AMY GOODMAN: No, actually, the interview that Hillary Clinton did was with Nicholas Kristof,
and it was in the Women in the World conference. It was several hours before the attack took place.
ALLAN NAIRN: Just hours, uh-huh.
AMY GOODMAN: And that video clip of her saying, "Why doesn't he bomb an airfield?" or "I would
bomb an airfield," was played before the attack took place.
ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah. In fact, come to think of it, the way Trump operates, maybe Trump saw that
-- if that was publicly available --
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
ALLAN NAIRN: -- maybe Trump saw that clip. That's exactly the kind of thing that would set
him off, say, "Oh, my god. I've got to at least match her, and maybe top her." But this gets back
to the more fundamental point that it's really important to understand, which is, US has this
violent system, which is criminal, and it has had it for decades. It is willing to commit aggression
and kill civilians in country after country after country. And all of those responsible for it
should be judged by the same standards that we judge domestic killers. And by those standards,
they should all be in prison, including the living US presidents, including Hillary Clinton.
But Trump -- now, that all said, Trump makes it even worse. Trump is bringing in a doctrine
and a group of people who are in the process of and are definitely going to commit even more killings
of civilians, even more aggression. And that's why it was such -- one of many reasons why it was
such a catastrophe that Trump and the radical-right Republicans won, because it will make it even
worse. And the argument which you hear going around, especially in some circles on the left, that,
"Oh, they're all bad. They're equally bad," it's insane, and it's irresponsible, given that now
even more people are going to suffer as a result.
AMY GOODMAN: Award-winning investigative journalist Allan Nairn. We'll be back with him in a minute,
as he talks more about his assessment of the Trump presidency. Stay with us. This piece was reprinted
by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or
license from the source. Amy Goodman Amy Goodman is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent,
award-winning news program airing on more than 1,100 public television and radio stations worldwide.
Time Magazine named Democracy Now! its "Pick of the Podcasts," along with NBC's "Meet the Press."
"... What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia? Again, no Americans knows or cares. Or the morons saw a movie. ..."
"... the Russians and Chinese, Iran and North Korea. ..."
"... Did you know that Russia is so powerful and the NSA and CIA so weak and helpless that Russia can determine the outcome of US elections? You must know this, because this is all you have heard from the utterly corrupt Democratic Party, the CIA, the FBI, the Amerian whore media, and the morons who listen to CNN, MSNBC, NPR or read the New York Times and Washington Post. ..."
"... Did you know that the president of Russia, which world polls show is the most respected leader in the world, is, according to Hillary Clinton "the new Hitler"? ..."
"... Did you know that the most respected leader in the world, Vladimir Putin, is a Mafia don, a thug, a tarantula at the center of a spy web, according to members of the US government who are so stupid that they cannot even spell their own names? ..."
"... Did you know that Putin, who has refrained from responding aggressively to US provocations, not out of fear, but out of respect for human life, is said to be hellbent on reconstructing the Soviet Empire? ..."
"... What are we to do, what is the world to do, when we have utter morons as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as President of the US, as National Security Adviser, as Secretary of Defense, as Secretary of State, as US Ambassador to the UN, as editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, MSNBC? How can there be any intelligence when only morons are in charge? ..."
It has become embarrassing to be an American.
Our country has had four war criminal presidents in succession. Clinton twice
launched military attacks on Serbia, ordering NATO to bomb the former Yugoslavia twice,
both in 1995 and in 1999, so that gives Bill two war crimes. George W. Bush invaded
Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked provinces of Pakistan and Yemen from the air. That comes
to four war crimes for Bush. Obama used NATO to destroy Libya and sent mercenaries to
destroy Syria, thereby commiting two war crimes. Trump attacked Syria with US forces,
thereby becoming a war criminal early in his regime.
To the extent that the UN participated in these war crimes along with Washington's
European, Canadian and Australian vassals, all are guilty of war crimes. Perhaps the UN
itself should be arraigned before the War Crimes Tribunal along with the EU, US, Australia
and Canada.
Quite a record. Western Civilization, if civilization it is, is the greatest
committer of war crimes in human history.
And there are other crimes-Somalia, and Obama's coups against Honduras and Ukraine and
Washington's ongoing attempts to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, and
Bolivia. Washington wants to overthrow Ecuador in order to grab and torture Julian Assange,
the world's leading democrat.
These war crimes committed by four US presidents caused millions of civilian
deaths and injuries and dispossessed and dislocated millions of peoples, who have
now arrived as refugees in Europe, UK, US, Canada, and Australia, bringing their problems
with them, some of which become problerms for Europeans, such as gang rapes.
What is the reason for all the death and destruction and the flooding of the West with
refugees from the West's naked violence? We don't know. We are told lies: Saddam Hussein's
"weapons of mass destruction," which the US government knew for an absolute fact did not
exist. "Assad's use of chemical weapons," an obvious, blatant lie. "Iranian nukes," another
blatant lie. The lies about Gaddafi in Libya are so absurd that it is pointless to repeat
them.
What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new
government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia?
Again, no Americans knows or cares. Or the morons saw a movie.
Violence for its own sake. That is what America has become.
Indeed, violence is what America is. There is nothing else there. Violence is
the heart of America.
Consider not only the bombings and destruction of countries, but also the endless
gratuitous, outrageous police violence against US citizens. If anyone should be disarmed,
it is the US police. The police commit more "gun violence" than anyone else, and unlike
drug gangs fighting one another for territory, police violence has no other reason than the
love of committing violence against other humans. The American police even shoot down
12-year old American kids prior to asking any question, especially if they are black.
Violence is America. America is violence. The moronic liberals blame it on gun
owners, but it is always the government that is the source of violence. That is
the reason our Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment. It is not gun owners who have
destroyed in whole or part eight countries. It is the armed-at-taxpayer-expense US
government that commits the violence.
America's lust for violence is now bringing the Washington morons up against people who
can commit violence back: the Russians and Chinese, Iran and North Korea.
Beginning with the Clinton moron every US government has broken or withdrawn
from agreements with Russia, agreements that were made in order to reduce tensions
and the risk of thermo-nuclear war. Washington initially covered its aggressive steps
toward Russia with lies, such as ABM missile sites on Russia's border are there to protect
Europe from (non-existent) Iranian nuclear ICBMs.
The Obama regime still told lies but escalated to false charges against
Russia and Russia's president in order to build tensions between nuclear powers, the
antithesis of Ronald Reagan's policy. Yet moronic liberals love Obama and hate Reagan.
Did you know that Russia is so powerful and the NSA and CIA so weak and helpless
that Russia can determine the outcome of US elections? You must know this, because this is
all you have heard from the utterly corrupt Democratic Party, the CIA, the FBI, the Amerian
whore media, and the morons who listen to CNN, MSNBC, NPR or read the New York Times and
Washington Post.
Surely you have heard at least one thousand times that Russia invaded Ukraine;
yet Washington's puppet still sits in Kiev. One doesn't have to have an IQ above
90 to understand that if Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would not still be there.
Did you know that the president of Russia, which world polls show is the most
respected leader in the world, is, according to Hillary Clinton "the new Hitler"?
Did you know that the most respected leader in the world, Vladimir Putin, is a Mafia
don, a thug, a tarantula at the center of a spy web, according to members of the US
government who are so stupid that they cannot even spell their own names?
Did you know that Putin, who has refrained from responding aggressively to US
provocations, not out of fear, but out of respect for human life, is said to be hellbent on
reconstructing the Soviet Empire? Yet, when Putin sent a Russian force against the US
and Israeli trained and supplied Georgian army that Washington sent to attack South
Ossetia, the Russian Army conquered Georgia in five hours; yet withdrew after teaching the
morons the lesson. If Putin wanted to reconstruct the Russian Empire, why didn't he keep
Georgia, a Russian province for 300 years prior to Washington's breakup of the Russian
Empire when the Soviet Union collapsed? Washington was powerless to do anything had Putin
declared Georgia to be again part of Russia.
And now we have the embarrassment of Trump's CIA director, Mike Pompeo, possibly
the most stupid person in America. Here we have a moron of the lowest grade. I am
not sure there is any IQ there at all. Possibly it reads zero.
This moron, if he qualifies to that level, which I doubt, has accused Julian Assange,
the world's Premier Journalist, the person who more than anyone represents the First
Amendment of the US Constitution, of being a demon who sides with dictators and endangers
the security of American hegemony with the help of Russia. All because Wilileaks publishes
material from official sources revealing the criminal behavior of the US government.
Wikileaks doesn't steal the documents. The documents are leaked to Wikileaks by
whistleblowers who cannot tolerate the immorality and lies of the US government.
Anyone who tells the truth is by definition against the United States of
America. And the moron Pompeo intends to get them.
What are we to do, what is the world to do, when we have utter morons as Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency, as President of the US, as National Security Adviser, as
Secretary of Defense, as Secretary of State, as US Ambassador to the UN, as editors of the
New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, MSNBC? How can there be any intelligence when
only morons are in charge?
Stupid is as stupid does. The Chinese government has said that the
moronic Americans could attack North Korea at any moment. A large US fleet is heading to
North Korea. North Korea apparently now has nuclear weapons. One North Korean nuclear
weapon can wipe out the entirety of the US fleet. Why is Washington inviting this outcome?
The only possible answer is moronic stupidity.
North Korea is not bothering anyone. Why is Washington picking on North Korea? Does
Washington want war with China? In which case, is Washinton kissing off the West Coast of
the US? Why does the West Coast support policies that imply the demise of the West Coast of
the US? Do the morons on the West Coast think that the US can initiate war with China, or
North Korea, without any consequesnces to the West Coast? Are even Amerians this utterly
stupid?
China or Russia individually can wipe out the US. Together they can make North America
uninhabitalbe until the end of time. Why are the Washington morons provoking powerful
nuclear powers? Do the Washington morons think Russia and China will submit to threats?
The answer is: Washington is a collection of morons, people stupid below the
meaning of stupid. People so far outside of reality that they imagine that their hubris and
arrogance elevates them above reality.
When the first Satan 2 hits Washington, the greatest collection of morons in the world
will cease to exist.
The world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
Bring it on! Come on morons, eliminate yourselves! The rest of us cannot wait.
PCR has the southern gentleman's understanding of the grip
of New England Puritan arrogance and hypocrisy on this
nation. When you think you are 'the shining city on the
hill' you can do no wrong. You think you're bringing
'democracy' to the world and G-d has 'shed his grace on
thee'. This is an old problem & leading Americans wrote &
spoke on it, including Thomas Jefferson.
"People so far outside of reality that they imagine that
their hubris and arrogance elevates them above reality."
Globalized Neolithic Civilization, that the USA became the
"leader"
of, is the maximizing expression of the abilities to back up more or less
legalized lies with legalized violence, despite that doing so never stops
those lies from still being
false ...
In general,
the overall situation is FAR WORSE than the superficially correct analysis
provided by Paul Craig Roberts!
Indeed, what is
"Easter,"
but the metaphorical
expression of yet another manifestation of the criminal insanities which
follow from the excessive successfulness from being able to back up lies
with violence, emerging out of the deep history of Neolithic Civilization?
Meanwhile, the entire political economy is almost totally based on public
governments enforcing frauds by private banks, while it, therefore, has
become politically impossible to prevent those vicious spirals of the
funding of political processes from automatically becoming worse, faster, at
about an exponential rate, due to prodigious progress in physical science
and technology being channeled through Civilization based on the abilities
to back up lies with violence, despite that being able to do so results in
Civilization becoming more and more psychotic, at about an exponential rate:
"Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad."
America had 44,000 suicides in 2014, 16,000 homicides, 10,000 heroin
overdoses, and 10,000 prescription opioids overdoses., and one percent of
our population is in the prison industrial complex, with the most corrupt
criminals in our government, banking system, and mic roaming freely and
committing more atrocities every day. Glad it's working out for ya!
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/
Wow. I've never seen Paul this pissed. I guess he, along with a lot of other
Americans, feel a certain helplessness to counter the insane policies and
decisions coming from these people who have built their false power on the
backs of the working people. He's right. If the US gets nuked, the rest of the
world will breathe a sigh of relief. Imagine if the tables were turned, and our
country looked like Libya, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia from being bombed, day in and
day out. And wondering if you'd be alive the next day because you weren't in
the right place at the right time. Way overboard with the empire crap, the US
is.
my thoughts is that last century's nukes are big ponderous dinosaurs that
wont get 5000 feet before the new and improved anti missiles kill them. or
the satellites.. I have no doubt that all the land based ICBMs are
worthless.
Maybe we could get a few through from our subs but that too is
speculation..
Years ago my brother was in the navy and his job was to fly around in an
awacs type plane and intercept and decode Russian messages and he told me
that one of the messages he decoded was the locations of every Trident in
our fleet.
It seems like bullies always go down the same way. They rule by
intimidation and then when they get challenged and eventually wounded
everybody sees that they are weak and can/should be beaten. They then get
throttled because there is blood in the water. We don't seem to far off
from that.
America is Rome. Modeled after the old Rome including political/legal
structure, architecture and symbols. New Rome same as the old Rome except the
weaponry is more powerful.
You could hear the deep sadness in the preacher's voice as he named "the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world today -- my own government." With those words, the Reverend Martin Luther
King, Jr., launched a
scathing indictment of America's war in Vietnam. It was April 4, 1967.
That first antiwar sermon of his seemed to signal a new high tide of opposition to a brutal
set of American policies in Southeast Asia. Just 11 days later, unexpectedly large crowds would
come out in
New York and
San Francisco
for the first truly massive antiwar rallies. Back then, a protest of at least a quarter of
a million seemed yuge .
King signaled another turning point when he concluded his speech by bringing up "something
even more disturbing" -- something that would deeply disturb the developing antiwar movement as
well. "The war in Vietnam," he said, "is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American
spirit."
Many of those who gathered at antiwar rallies days later were already beginning to suspect
the same thing. Even if they could actually force their government to end its war in Vietnam,
they would be healing only a symptom of a far more profound illness. With that realization came
a shift in consciousness, the clearest sign of which could be found in the sizeable contingent
of countercultural hippies who began joining those protests. While antiwar radicals were challenging
the unjust political and military policies of their government, the counterculturists were focused
on something bigger: trying to revolutionize the whole fabric of American society.
Why recall this history exactly 50 years later, in the age of Donald Trump? Curiously enough,
King offered at least a partial answer to that question in his 1967 warning about the deeper malady.
"If we ignore this sobering reality," he said, "we will find ourselves... marching... and attending
rallies without end." The alternative? "We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values."
Like many of my generation, I feel as if, in lieu of that radical revolution, I have indeed
been marching and attending rallies for the last half-century, even if there were also long fallow
periods of inactivity. (In those quiet times, of course, there was always organizing and activism
going on behind the scenes, preparing for the next wave of marches and demonstrations in response
to the next set of obvious outrages.)
If the arc of history bends toward justice, as
King claimed , it's been a strange journey, a bizarre twisting and turning as if we were all
on some crazed roller-coaster ride.
The Trump era already seems like the most bizarre twist of all, leaving us little choice but
to march and rally at a quickening pace for years to come. A radical revolution in values? Unless
you're thinking of Trump's plutocrats and environment wreckers, not so much. If anything, the
nation once again finds itself facing an exaggerated symptom of a far deeper malady. Perhaps one
day, like the antiwar protestors of 1967, anti-Trump protestors will say: If the American
system we live under can create this atrocity, there must be something wrong with the whole thing.
But that's the future. At present, the resistance movement, though as unexpectedly large as
the movement of 1967, is still focused mainly on symptoms, the expanding list of inhumane 1% policies
the Republicans (themselves in chaos) are preparing to foist on the nation. Yet to come up are
the crucial questions: What's wrong with our system? How could it produce a President Trump, a
Republican hegemony, and the society-wrecking policies that go with them both? What would a radically
new direction mean and how would we head there?
In 1967, antiwar activists were groping their way toward answers to similar questions. At least
we have one advantage. We can look back at their answers and use them to help make sense of our
own situation. As it happens, theirs are still depressingly relevant because the systemic malady
that produced the Vietnam War is a close cousin to the one that has now given us President Trump.
Challenging the Deeper Malady
The Sixties spawned many analyses of the ills of the American system. The ones that marked
that era as revolutionary concluded that the heart of the problem was a distinctive mode of consciousness
-- a way of seeing, experiencing, interpreting, and being in the world. Political and cultural
radicals converged, as
historian
Todd Gitlin concluded, in their demand for a transformation of "national if not global (or
cosmic) consciousness."
Nor was such a system uniquely American, they discovered. It was nothing less than the hallmark
of Western modernity.
In exploring the nature of that "far deeper malady," Martin Luther King, for instance, turned
to the European philosopher Martin Buber, who found the root of that consciousness in modernity's
"I-It" attitude. From early childhood, he suggested, we learn to see other people as mere objects
("its") with no inherent relation to us. In the process, we easily lose sight of their full humanity.
That, in turn, allows us free rein to manipulate others (or as in Vietnam simply destroy them)
for our own imagined benefit.
King particularly
decried
such dehumanization as it played itself out in American racism: "Segregation substitutes an
'I-it' relationship for the 'I-thou' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status
of things." But he
condemned it no less strongly in the economic sphere, where it affected people of all races.
"The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system," he said, "encourages a cutthroat
competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered...
Capitalism fails to realize that life is social."
Another influential thinker of that era was a German-American philosopher,
Herbert Marcuse
. (Some radicals even marched in rallies carrying signs reading "Marx, Mao, Marcuse.") For
him, the dehumanization of modernity was
rooted in the way science and technology led us to view nature as a mere collection of "things"
having no inherent relation to us -- things to be analyzed, controlled, and if necessary destroyed
for our own benefit.
Capitalists use technology, he explained, to build machines that take charge both of the workers
who run them and of aspects of the natural world. The capitalists then treat those workers as
so many things, not people. And the same hierarchy -- boss up here, bossed down there -- shows
up at every level of society from the nuclear family to the international family of nations (with
its nuclear arsenals). In a society riddled with structures of domination, it was no accident
that the US was pouring so much lethal effort into devastating Vietnam.
As Marcuse saw it, however, the worst trick those bosses play on us is to manipulate our consciousness,
to seduce us into thinking that the whole system makes sense and is for our own good. When those
machines are cranking out products that make workers' lives more comfortable, most of them are
willing to embrace and perpetuate a system that treats them as dominated objects.
Marcuse would not have been surprised to see so many workers voting for Donald Trump, a candidate
who built his campaign on promises of ever more intensified domination -- of marginalized people
at home, of "
bad hombres " needing to be destroyed abroad, and of course, of nature itself, especially
in the form of
fossil fuels on a planet where the very processes he championed ensured a future of utter
devastation.
One explanation for the electoral success of Trump was the way he appealed to heartland white
working-class voters who saw their standard of living and sense of social status steadily eroding.
Living in a world in which hierarchy and domination are taken for granted, it's hardly surprising
that many of them took it for granted as well that the only choice available was either to be
a dominator or to be dominated. Vote for me, the billionaire businessman (famed for the phrase
"You're fired!") implicitly promised and you, too, will be one of the dominators. Vote against
me and you're doomed to remain among the dominated. Like so many other tricks of the system, this
one defied reality but worked anyway.
Many Trump voters who bought into the system will find themselves facing even harsher domination
by the 1%. And as the Trumpian fantasy of man dominating nature triggers inevitable twenty-first-century
blowback on a planetary scale, count on growing environmental and social disasters to bring
disproportionate pain to those already suffering most under the present system. In every arena,
as Marcuse explained back in the 1960s, the system of hierarchy and domination remains self-perpetuating
and self-escalating.
"The Long and Bitter but Beautiful Struggle for a New World"
What's the remedy for this malady, now as lethally obvious at home as it once was in Vietnam?
"The end of domination [is] the only truly revolutionary exigency," Marcuse wrote. True freedom,
he thought, means freeing humanity from the hierarchical system that locks us into the daily struggle
to earn a living by selling our labor. Freedom means liberating our consciousness to search for
our own goals and being able to pursue them freely. In Martin Luther King's words, freedom is
"the opportunity to fulfill my total capacity untrammeled by any artificial barrier."
How to put an end not only to America's war in Vietnam, but to a whole culture built on domination?
King's answer on that April 4th was deceptively simple: "Love is somehow the key that unlocks
the door... The first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last
word."
The simplicity in that statement was deceptive because love is itself such a complicated
word. King
often explained that the Greeks had three words for love: eros (aesthetic or romantic
love), philia (friendship), and agape (self-sacrificing devotion to others).
He left no doubt that he considered agape far superior to the other two.
The emerging counterculture of those years certainly agreed with him on the centrality of love
to human liberation. After all, it was "the love generation." But its mantra -- "If it
feels good, do it" -- made King's rejection of eros in the name of self-negating
agape a non-starter for them.
King, however, offered another view of love, which was far more congenial to the counterculture.
Love unites whatever is separated, he preached. This is the kind of love that God uses in his
work. We, in turn, are always called upon to imitate God and so to transform our society into
what King called a "beloved community."
Though few people at the time made the connection, King's Christian understanding of love was
strikingly similar to Marcuse's secular
view of erotic love . Marcuse saw eros as the fulfillment of desire. He also saw
it as anything but selfish, since it flows from what Freud called the id, which always wants to
abolish ego boundaries and recover that sense of oneness with everything we all had as infants.
When we experience anyone or anything erotically, we feel that we are inherently interconnected,
"tied together in a single garment of destiny," as King so eloquently put it. When boundaries
and separation dissolve, there can be no question of hierarchy or domination.
Every moment that hints at such unification brings us pleasure. In a revolutionary society
that eschews structures of domination for the ideal of unification, all policies are geared toward
creating more moments of unity and pleasure.
Think of this as the deep-thought revolution of the Sixties: radically transformed minds would
create a radically transformed society. Revolutionaries of that time were, in fact, trying to
wage the very utopian struggle that King summoned all Americans to in his April 4th speech, "the
long and bitter but beautiful struggle for a new world."
Fifty Years Later: The Thread That Binds
At this very moment 50 years ago, a movement resisting a brutal war of domination in a distant
land was giving birth to a movement calling for the creation of a new consciousness to heal our
ailing society. Will the resistance movement of 2017 head in a similar direction?
At first glance, it seems unlikely. After all, ever since the Vietnam War ended, progressives
have had a tendency to focus on single issues of injustice or laundry lists of problems. They
have rarely imagined the American system as anything more than a collection of wrong-headed policies
and wrong-hearted politicians. In addition, after years of resisting the right wing as it won
victory after victory, and of watching the Democrats morph into a neoliberal crew and then into
a failing party with its own dreary laundry lists of issues and personalities, the capacity to
hope for fundamental change may have gone the way of Herbert Marcuse and Martin Luther King.
Still, for those looking hard, a thread of hope exists. Today's marches, rallies, and town
halls are packed with veterans of the Sixties who can remember, if we try, what it felt like to
believe we were fighting not only to stop a war but to start a revolution in consciousness. No
question about it, we made plenty of mistakes back then. Now, with so much more experience (however
grim) in our memory banks, perhaps we might develop more flexible strategies and a certain faith
in taking a more patient, long-term approach to organizing for change.
Don't forget as well that, whatever our failings and the failings of other past movements,
we also have a deep foundation of victories (along with defeats) to build on. No, there was no
full-scale revolution in our society -- no surprise there. But in so many facets of our world,
advances happened nonetheless. Think of how, in those 50 years just past, views on diversity,
social equality, the environment, healthcare, and so many other issues, which once existed only
on the fringes of our world, have become thoroughly
mainstream . Taken as a whole, they represent a partial but still profound and significant
set of changes in American consciousness.
Of course, the Sixties not only can't be resurrected, but shouldn't be. (After all, it should
never be forgotten that what they led to wasn't a dreamed of new society but the "Reagan revolution,"
as the arc of justice took the first of its many grim twists and turns.) At best, the Sixties
critique of the system would have to be updated to include many new developments.
Even the methods of those Sixties radicals would need major revisions, given that our world,
especially of communication, now relies so heavily on blindingly fast changes in technology. But
every time we log onto the Internet and browse the web, it should remind us that -- shades of
the past -- across this embattled Earth of ours, we're all tied together in a single worldwide
web of relations and of destiny. It's either going to be one for all and all for one, or it's
going to be none for 7.4 billion
on a planet heading for hell.
Today is different, too, because our movement was not born out of protest against an odious
policy, but against an odious mindset embodied in a deplorable person who nonetheless managed
to take the Oval Office. He's so obviously a symptom of something larger and deeper that perhaps
the protesters of this generation will grasp more quickly than the radicals of the Vietnam era
that America's underlying disease is a destructive mode of consciousness (and not just a bad combover).
The move from resisting individual policies to transforming American consciousness may already
have begun in small ways. After all, "love trumps hate" has become the most common slogan of the
progressive movement. And the word love is being heard in hard-edged political discourse,
not only on the left , but
among mainstream political voices like
Van Jones and
Cory Booker . Once again, there is even talk of "
revolutionary
love ."
Of course, the specific policies of the Republicans and this president (including his developing
war policies ) must be resisted
and the bleeding of the immediate moment staunched. Yet the urgent question of the late 1960s
remains: What can be done when there are so many fronts on which to struggle and the entire system
demands constant vigilant attention? In the age of a president who regularly sucks all the air
out of the room, how do we even talk about all of this without being overwhelmed?
In many ways, the current wave of regressive change and increasing chaos in Washington should
be treated as a caricature of the system that we all have been living under for so long. Turn
to that broader dimension and the quest for a new consciousness may prove the thread that, though
hardly noticed, already ties together the many facets of the developing resistance movement.
The largest mobilization for progressive politics since the Vietnam era offers a unique opportunity
to go beyond simply treating symptoms and start offering cures for the underlying illness. If
this opportunity is missed, versions of the same symptoms are likely to recur, while unpredictable
new ones will undoubtedly emerge for the next 50 years, and as Martin Luther King predicted, we
will go on marching without end. Surely we deserve a better future and a better fate. To stay
on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com
here .
I
am responding to your distribution of what I understand is a White House
statement claiming intelligence findings about the nerve agent attack on
April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. My understanding from your note is
that this White House intelligence summary was released to you sometime on
April 11, 2017.
I have reviewed the document carefully,
and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not
provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete
knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack
in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017.
In fact, a main piece of evidence that is
cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals
on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4.
This conclusion is based on an assumption
made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and
the photographs of that source. My own assessment, is that the source was
very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made
from the photographs cited by the White House.
However, if one assumes, as does the White
House, that the source of the sarin was from this location and that the
location was not tampered with, the most plausible conclusion is that the
sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122 mm
section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.
The only undisputable facts stated in the
White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent
occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria on that morning. Although the White House
statement repeats this point in many places within its report, the report
contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a
munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains
absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this
atrocity.
The report instead repeats observations of
physical effects suffered by victims that with very little doubt indicate
nerve agent poisoning.
The only source the document cites as
evidence that the attack was by the Syrian government is the crater it
claims to have identified on a road in the North of Khan Shaykhun.
I have located this crater using Google
Earth and there is absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a
munition designed to disperse sarin after it is dropped from an aircraft.
The Google Earth map shown in
Figure 1
at the end of this text section shows the location of that
crater on the road in the north of Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White
House statement.
The data cited by the White House is more
consistent with the possibility that the munition was placed on the ground
rather than dropped from a plane. This conclusion assumes that the crater
was not tampered with prior to the photographs. However, by referring to the
munition in this crater, the White House is indicating that this is the
erroneous source of the data it used to conclude that the munition came from
a Syrian aircraft.
Analysis of the debris as shown in the
photographs cited by the White House clearly indicates that the munition was
almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive
on top of it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged load
of sarin.
Since time appears to be of the essence
here, I have put together the summary of the evidence I have that the White
House report contains false and misleading conclusions in a series of
figures that follow this discussion. Each of the figures has a description
below it, but I will summarize these figures next and wait for further
inquiries about the basis of the conclusions I am putting forward herein.
Figure 1
shows a Google
Earth image of the northeast corner of Khan Shaykhun where the crater
identified as the source of the sarin attack and referred to in the White
House intelligence report is located.
Also shown in the Google Earth image is
the direction of the wind from the crater. At 3 AM the wind was going
directly to the south at a speed of roughly 1.5 to 2.5 m/s. By 6 AM the wind
was moving to the southeast at 1 to 2 m/s. The temperature was also low, 50
to 55°F near the ground. These conditions are absolutely ideal for a nerve
agent attack.
When the temperature near the ground is
low, and there is no sun and very slow winds, the dense cool air stays close
to the ground and there is almost no upward motion of the air. This
condition causes any particles, droplets, or clouds of dispersed gas to stay
close to the ground as the surrounding air moves over the ground. We
perceive this motion as a gentle breeze on a calm morning before sunrise.
One can think of a cloud of sarin as much
like a cloud of ink generated by an escaping octopus. The ink cloud sits in
the water and as the water slowly moves, so does the cloud. As the cloud is
moved along by the water, it will slowly spread in all directions as it
moves. If the layer of water where the ink is embedded moves so as to stay
close to the ocean floor, the cloud will cover objects as it moves with the
water.
This is the situation that occurs on a
cool night before sunrise when the winds move only gently.
Figures 5 and 6
show
tables that summarize the weather at 3 hour intervals in Khan Shaykun on the
day of the attack, April 4, the day before the attack, April 3, and the day
after the attack, April 5. The striking feature of the weather is that there
were relatively high winds in the morning hours on both April 3 and April 5.
If the gas attack were executed either the day before or the day after in
the early morning, the attack would have been highly ineffective. The much
higher winds would have dispersed the cloud of nerve agent and the mixing of
winds from higher altitudes would have caused the nerve agent to be carried
aloft from the ground. It is therefore absolutely clear that the time and
day of the attack was carefully chosen and was no accident.
Figure 2
shows a high
quality photograph of the crater identified in the White House report as the
source of the sarin attack. Assuming that there was no tampering of evidence
at the crater, one can see what the White House is claiming as a dispenser
of the nerve agent.
The dispenser looks like a 122 mm pipe
like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets.
As shown in the close-up of the pipe in
the crater in
Figure 3
, the pipe looks like it was
originally sealed at the front end and the back end. Also of note is that
the pipe is flattened into the crater, and also has a fractured seam that
was created by the brittle failure of the metal skin when the pipe was
suddenly crushed inward from above.
Figure 4
shows the
possible configuration of an improvised sarin dispersal device that could
have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was
originally a cylindrical pipe. A good guess of how this dispersal mechanism
worked (again, assuming that the crater and carcass were not staged, as
assumed in the White House report) was that a slab of high explosive was
placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated.
The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt
crushing mallet. It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time
creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an
incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened the sarin acted on the walls
and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the pipe and also
the failure of the cap on the back end. This mechanism of dispersal is
essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which
then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many
directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.
If this is in fact the mechanism used to
disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the
ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane.
Figure 8
shows the
improvised sarin dispenser along with a typical 122 mm artillery rocket and
the modified artillery rocket used in the sarin attack of August 21, 2013 in
Damascus.
At that time (August 30, 2013) the Obama
White House also issued an intelligence report containing obvious
inaccuracies. For example, that report stated without equivocation that the
sarin carrying artillery rocket used in Damascus had been fired from Syrian
government controlled areas. As it turned out, the particular munition used
in that attack could not go further than roughly 2 km, very far short of any
boundary controlled by the Syrian government at that time. The White House
report at that time also contained other critical and important errors that
might properly be described as amateurish. For example, the report claimed
that the locations of the launch and impact of points of the artillery
rockets were observed by US satellites. This claim was absolutely false and
any competent intelligence analyst would have known that. The rockets could
be seen from the Space-Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) but the satellite
could absolutely not see the impact locations because the impact locations
were not accompanied by explosions. These errors were clear indicators that
the White House intelligence report had in part been fabricated and had not
been vetted by competent intelligence experts.
This same situation appears to be the case
with the current White House intelligence report. No competent analyst would
assume that the crater cited as the source of the sarin attack was
unambiguously an indication that the munition came from an aircraft. No
competent analyst would assume that the photograph of the carcass of the
sarin canister was in fact a sarin canister. Any competent analyst would
have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or
real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin
canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a
munition within it. All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that
this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report, was not
properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.
I have worked with the intelligence
community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of
intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times
– but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in
it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the
White House document they would have not approved the document going
forward.
I am available to expand on these comments
substantially. I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged
White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of
analysis that this report cannot be correct, and it also appears that this
report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community.
This is a very serious matter.
President Obama was initially misinformed
about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the
August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public
record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was
that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve
agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of
National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was
in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told
the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the
attack was "not a slamdunk."
The question that needs to be answered by
our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly
important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how
did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed
and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected? The
same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House
on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John
Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!
We again have a situation where the White
House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence
report.
The Congress and the public have been
given reports in the name of the intelligence community about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, technical evidence supposedly collected by
satellite systems that any competent scientists would know is false, and now
from photographs of the crater that any analyst who has any competent at all
would not trust as evidence.
It is late in the evening for me, so I
will end my discussion here.
I stand ready to provide the country with
any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What I can say for
sure herein is that what the country is now being told by the White House
cannot be true
and the fact that this information has been
provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling
of our national security.
Sincerely yours,
Theodore A. Postol
Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology,
and National Security Policy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Email: [email protected]
Cell Phone: 617 543-7646
... ... ... ...
A lot of interesting and detailed information omitted
200 Words
I was really hoping that Prof. Postol would share his thoughts about the
attack in Khan Sheikhoun. If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed
blog post
, in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical
attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical
attack in Ghouta in August 2013. I argue that, in the case of the attack
in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled and that, for that
reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not
jump to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis
produced by Postol and Lloyd at the time, which showed that both the
much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were mistaken. I
also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that
undermined the official narrative, the media never changed their stance
and continued to talk as if there was no doubt that Assad's regime was
responsible for the attack. It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide
a source for every single factual claim I make. The post has already been
widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post a
follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that
bears on the attack in Khan Sheikhoun.
100 Words
This just gets weirder and weirder. Is the position of the Trump
Administration and the intelligence community that the Syrian Air Force
went through all the trouble to launch an aerial attack and drop
one
bomb? Handling chemical munitions is inherently dangerous. Syrian Air
Force personnel loading the nerve agent into the bomb and then fitting it
on the plane would have to wear protective clothing and receive special
training, and might even then suffer some exposure casualties. And my
recollection is that chemical weapons, even nerve gas, generally have to
be used in massive quantities to achieve any military result.
The
chances that the gassing was as a result of a Syrian Air Force attack are
vanishingly small. Other forces are in play here. The American people are
being deceived.
Read
More
100 Words
Technical stuff is interesting, but from the layman's perspective it's
really straightforward: means, motive, opportunity.
Opportunity: yes.
Means: seems doubtful, due to the 2013-14 OPCW cleanup of the
government-controlled territory.
Motive: not just absent, but manifestly counterproductive, under the
circumstances.
There's also ample evidence of the government desperately trying to
avoid antagonizing the population. In the territories they they liberate,
they routinely – and that's a fact – transport anti-government militants
and their families, and even with their light weapons, into
rebel-controlled territories, that same Idlib province. In
government-supplied buses. Even though they could easily kill them all,
right on the spot. How does it square with with the supposed
indiscriminate gassing?
Read
More
Anon
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT \n
100 Words
Much "evidence" can be faked. This is just an example of that fact.
Looking at that tube, it is obvious that it did not explode. If it is
very difficult to determine if evidence is real or faked, then one must
be very careful reaching conclusions based on said evidence. At that
point, motives must be taken into consideration.
The argument that the Syrian government had any motive whatsoever to
carry out this attack is very,very weak. Also, I have heard the claim
that the US government believes only one chemical weapon was used.
Assuming that the Syrian government carried out the attack, which I do
not believe, why would they use just one chemical weapon?
So what we have here is very weak evidence, very weak motive, and an
illogical and inefficient proposed mechanism. This does not pass the
smell test at all.
Avery
,
April 13, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Mao Cheng Ji
Technical stuff is interesting, but from the layman's perspective it's
really straightforward: means, motive, opportunity.
Opportunity: yes.
Means: seems doubtful, due to the 2013-14 OPCW cleanup of the
government-controlled territory.
Motive: not just absent, but manifestly counterproductive, under the
circumstances.
There's also ample evidence of the government desperately trying to avoid
antagonizing the population. In the territories they they liberate, they
routinely - and that's a fact - transport anti-government militants and
their families, and even with their light weapons, into rebel-controlled
territories, that same Idlib province. In government-supplied buses. Even
though they could easily kill them all, right on the spot. How does it
square with with the supposed indiscriminate gassing?
You make good points.
{How does it square with with the supposed indiscriminate gassing?}
It doesn't.
Particularly a chemical attack, to kill, what, 100 people?
Assad knows very well what that would mean: even Russia would not let it
slide.
As you said, SAA could easily kill hundreds of terrorists and their
sympathizers with conventional bombs if they wanted to kill
indiscriminately.
On the other hand it squares 100% with enemies of Syria.
SAA is winning, albeit at a very slow pace, and Neocons clearly are
panicking and desperate to prevent the breakout of peace in Syria at any
cost.
200 Words
I was a demo guy in the Marine Corps, so I am
familiar with the effect of explosive charges.
There is no question that the photo, if accurate,
is consistent with a charge placed above rather
than within. There may be other explanations for
the compression but definitely not an internal
charge. I would note that the diagram in the
article suggests some sort of "pipe bomb" type
charge on top, but I do not see any sort of
fragments from that type of device. If it was a
charge on top it would have needed to be a simple
explosive charge, probably tamped with dirt or
sand. In any case, there would be explosive
residue on the outside of the pipe which could
easily be identified. Obviously, if this pipe was
source of the agent someone should have preserved
this evidence and turned it over to the UN or
whoever.
Ivan
,
April 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT \n
@Diversity Heretic
This just gets weirder and weirder. Is the position of the Trump
Administration and the intelligence community that the Syrian Air Force
went through all the trouble to launch an aerial attack and drop
one
bomb? Handling chemical munitions is inherently dangerous. Syrian Air
Force personnel loading the nerve agent into the bomb and then fitting it
on the plane would have to wear protective clothing and receive special
training, and might even then suffer some exposure casualties. And my
recollection is that chemical weapons, even nerve gas, generally have to
be used in massive quantities to achieve any military result.
The chances that the gassing was as a result of a Syrian Air Force attack
are vanishingly small. Other forces are in play here. The American people
are being deceived.
Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air
force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike
would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh.
El Dato
,
April 13, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT \n
@Ivan
Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air
force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike
would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh.
Which is why
Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for
the deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war?
Yes
Who is worse, Assad or Lincoln?
Lincoln wins that race in a blowout. Lincoln was one of the most evil
monsters to ever walk the earth.
Well, President Asad is trying to prevent the destruction of his nation,
the probable partitioning of it, the crushing of any institutions
reflecting the Arab consensus that has always bound the nation together
and made its institutions work, as well as preventing openly genocidal
barbarians from achieving victory, erasing Earth's oldest Christian
communities and other religious minorities. President Lincoln was facing
a foe that just wanted slavery and separatism. The Confederates were not
genocidal, although the cruelties of the slave trade and the plantation
system often reached the same level of inhumanity. So, overall, from the
perspective of a CNN/MSNBC believer, or a Trumpian nouveau-neocon, Asad
is much worse worse than Hitler, in fact, as Sean Spicer was trying to
say. Here's a tip: Keep it simple, Sean. Don't bring up the Holocaust,
just say he's worse than Hitler. Some will question that, but those who
matter will let it slide.
Agent76
,
April 13, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT \n
April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of
Chemical Weapons
500 Words
Where is Russia's propaganda machine? 71 years old, retired American
professors does amateurish analysis using one pict obtained from social
media and Sputnik and Russia Today will publish it, right? But where are
the Russians? What did they do to support the belief that the gas attack
was a false flag? Apparently nothing. Lavrov calls of UN investigation.
That's about all. But what about the assets they have in Syria? Couldn't
they release some information pointing to the real culprits?
Inept,
indolent losers!
Why Russia's media are so pathetically weak?
For some years
already I follow some Russian media outfits and I am amazed why they
are so inept and indolent. Their approach is totally inadequate when
targeted with Anglo-Zio media aggressive anti-Russia narratives.
This time when Russia and Putin were smacked in the face in Syria
the best Russia came up with was to claim that it did not hurt that
much, that only 23 out of 59 missiles reached the target and that the
damage to the airport was minimal. And next day they doubled down on
it by having planes taking off from the airport. Whether the claims
are factual or not it does not matter. The opposite approach should
have be used: exaggerate the pain and loss you have suffered. Keep
showing dead bodies and damage even if invented. Do not pretend that
it rains when they are spitting in your face. Show your hurt, your
weakness. Be more like Anglo-Zio propaganda that will accuse every
drop a real rain of aggressive intent or even of being anti-semitic.
Be proactive not reactive.
So why Russia's propaganda machine is so weak? Is it because
Russians are proud people or that their journalists and propagandists
have moral scruples and won't engage in lies and manipulations?
Obviously not. They just do not know because they are conditioned by
the working of propaganda in the authoritarian regime just like during
Tsars and Bolsheviks. In the authoritarian regime the chief objective
of propaganda is to convince the subjects of the regime that the
regime knows what it is doing and that it is strong. The propaganda is
not really directed for the foreign enemies but for the domestic
friends. For this reason any setbacks or losses will be hidden from
the populace or minimized. No disasters and no catastrophes ever
happened in the Soviet Union if you just read Pravda or Izvestia.
Towards the end of WWII Goebbels was disappointed with inability of
German propaganda to produce sympathy around the world for Germans
suffering due to American and British bombing of German civilian
population that was killing children women, and elders. But this was a
consequence of years of hiding these losses from German population
because the regime wanted to project its strengths. And that was a
mistake. So if Russia wants to confront Anglo-Zio media they must
shape up and change the approach. So far they are failing though I am
sure they are doing a wonderful job for people like Smoothie (if you
ask him) and other clumsy and ineffective agents of influence on
behalf of Russia.
100 Words
@reiner Tor
Thanks, that's useful to know.
Are you sure it's true of sarin? I read that about sarin specifically.
It seems creating the sarin generates either hydrochloric acid or
hydrofluoric acid as byproduct (especially the latter is Very Not Good),
so keeping sarin even in glass bottles is bound to be fraught with
difficulties over the long run (instant expert via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
)
100 Words
What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed
bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance
system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and
they are usually months or years old.
Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas
attack?
Read
More
MarkinLA
,
April 13, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT \n
100 Words
And on CNN this morning there was a claim that the US intercepted Syrian
military people interacting with chemical weapons specialists or some
garbage like that. Just when the story is about to explode in the US's
face, out comes a convenient claim that doesn't make any sense to people
with IQs above room level. I am sure if there was such a dubious
communication it was created by Mossad or Saudi secret services.
@Carlton Meyer
Let me add that Jimmy Dore made a great point in that video. Many blame
Assad for the half million Syrians who have died in this civil war; yet
it was mostly caused by an invasion of outside Islamic mercs paid for by
the Saudis and Qatar.
Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for the
deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war? The
confederate rebels weren't even trying to conquer the north, they just
wanted to be left to run their own affairs.
100 Words
Everybody has Sarin Fever, soon there will be Sarin Pokemons, Sarin with
your ice cream, Sarin pillows, a George Lucas movie called "Sarin!" and
voucher for Sarin holidays I'm sure:
"North Korea may be able to arm missiles with sarin, Japan PM says
Abe did not provide any evidence why he felt North Korea had the
capability to equip missiles with chemical weapons. "
100 Words
@Alfa158
What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed
bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance
system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and
they are usually months or years old.
Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas
attack?
It's just to show the location:
The Google Earth map shown in Figure 1 at the end of this text
section shows the location of that crater on the road in the north of
Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White House statement.
100 Words
Sadly, the way these things work, the evidence as it stands will
henceforth be irrelevant. Now that the Trump administration has staked
its reputation on a cruise missile attack to punish Assad for using
chemical warfare, they will NEVER admit they were wrong. Just like Obama
will never admit he royally screwed up Libya and his amateurish
machinations got a U.S. ambassador dragged through the streets like a
dead cat. We seem to live in a world where truth no longer matters. What
matters is whether you can get the idiots in the media to buy your
version of events rather than your political enemy's version of events.
Personally, I never thought Assad was responsible for this atrocity. Why
risk something like that when everybody agreed he was finally winning
this thing?
El Dato
,
April 13, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT \n
300 Words
Olive branch extension and face-saving in progress?
Russia 'horrified at chemical attacks' in Syria, says former UK
ambassador to Moscow
Russia has been badly mishandled by Western powers, which fail to
realize the Kremlin is not fond of the Syrian leadership and is
horrified at recent chemical attacks, former British diplomat Tony
Brenton has told the BBC.
Speaking to the BBC 'Today' program on Thursday, Brenton, who
served as ambassador to Moscow from 2004 to 2008, said it is important
to understand Syria from the Russian perspective.
"The Russian view of the situation in Syria is very clear. They
don't much like [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and they must be
horrified at the chemical weapons attack last week.
But the question they ask themselves is, 'if we get rid of Assad,
what comes after?'" Brenton said.
"Their answer to that question is that 'we get some of Islamic
fundamentalism which is worse for us than Assad' so we put up with
the nasty dictator that we've got rather than admitting fundamentalism
which is a direct threat to us."
Asked if the Russians need "help" to move away from Assad, Brenton
said: "I think that is exactly it. I think if we can get together with
the Russians they have a real interest in moving away from Assad as
well."
Understanding the domestic political situation in Russia is also
vital in order to grapple with the question of how the country
operates in the world, he said.
"They are dealing with a population which doesn't really understand
why they are in Syria at all.
"If we could move towards an after-Assad regime in Syria which
guaranteed the non-intervention of Islamic fundamentalism, [Russia]
would be delighted to work in that direction."
100 Words
@Carlton Meyer
A Congressman and Iraq war vet suggests an investigation and the Dems
denounce her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1oECQ6r6do
This is what the Bankster puppet's do when they have been outed!
Dec 8, 2016 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to Stop Arming
Terrorists
December 08, 2016 Bipartisan Bill Would Forbid US Funding ISIS,
al-Qaeda Affiliates
Gabbert-Rohrabacher Bill Would Effectively End CIA Program Arming
Syrian Rebels. The Stop Arming Terrorists Act (SATA) has been introduced
today in the House of Representatives by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D – HI).
100 Words
The Jew keep their eye on the price – a busted up Syria. They have the
Kushner White House, all the rest of Stockholm DC, and their MSM all
pumping out the "Assad did it" lie.
The world's two major nuke powers are at loggerheads – but what the
hell – Israel is happy and getting its way.
You Stockholmers must never forget what the Jew terrorists tell you –
"Jews are the eternal victims" – so suck it up you 7,000,000,000 fools –
you must always defer to us!
100 Words
@Ivan
Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air
force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike
would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh.
Gilad's whole argument is flawed. The US has not said that chem. weapons
were stored there. [If anyone has official statement to contrary, please
correct me.] The US only claimed that chem. attacks were launched from
there.
Then, as to targeting, US said it was targeting below-ground
fuel storage, perhaps munitions also, but not chem. Again, anyone have
better info? Official, not MSM who will say anything.
anon
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT \n
100 Words
the Wall Street Journal's right wing neocon-in-residence Brett Stephens
loudly called for "regime change" in North Korea two weeks ago.
And
then there's Iran, which the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol is once again
saying is the ultimate "prize" for regime change, now that Trump is
directly bombing Assad's forces.
100 Words
@Carlton Meyer
Let me add that Jimmy Dore made a great point in that video. Many blame
Assad for the half million Syrians who have died in this civil war; yet
it was mostly caused by an invasion of outside Islamic mercs paid for by
the Saudis and Qatar.
Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for the
deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war? The
confederate rebels weren't even trying to conquer the north, they just
wanted to be left to run their own affairs.
Who is worse, Assad or Lincoln?
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of
a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from
2011 to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of
the refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
Read
More
anon
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT \n
100 Words
do not ignore these guys -
"Susannah Sirkin from the Soros-funded
Physicians for Human Rights claimed, "We know that sarin has been used
before by the Assad regime." But that has NOT been confirmed by any
credible organization. On the contrary, the most thorough investigations
point to sarin being used by the armed opposition, NOT the Syrian
government.
The other guest was Andrew Tabler from the neoconservative
Israeli-associated Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His
editorial from last fall makes clear what he wants: "The case for
(finally) bombing Assad." So, the viewers of the publicly funded network
got one of their usual doses of "Assad must go" propaganda"
100 Words
Higher intelligence individuals, moral integrity, ethical overview,
physical courage.
Since even the detailed and easy language above analysis leaves the
world at large clueless, the few with necessary perception within the
public, having no trouble understanding as outsiders what is meant, speak
about what is the quality of the Washington power structures.
The harnessed 'elites', including universities, are corrupted, cater
to superficial riches, the short term, in equivalents of family and clan.
Washington is a dump, where high quality individuals that by definition
need less structure have no place.
100 Words
@Steve Rendall
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a
factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011
to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the
refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much
of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria
from 2011 to 2014.
You have a rather unrealistically late idea of when foreign groups
started backing the terrorists in Syria.
Qatar, to name just one, is on the record as having actively supported
the rebels militarily since at least April 2012, and the FT reported in
May 2013 it had already spent $1-3 billion backing the rebels:
Turkey started providing support to the "Free Syria Army" in 2011, and
jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda were openly calling for volunteers to
fight in Syria by February 2012.
100 Words
@RobinG
Gilad's whole argument is flawed. The US has not said that chem. weapons
were stored there. [If anyone has official statement to contrary, please
correct me.] The US only claimed that chem. attacks were launched from
there.
Then, as to targeting, US said it was targeting below-ground fuel
storage, perhaps munitions also, but not chem. Again, anyone have better
info? Official, not MSM who will say anything.
I think you are right about US claims but they really don't make any
sense if the aim was to punish someone using chemical weapons. At least
Bush pretended to be looking for the WMD even though he likely knew they
didn't exist.
Where else would they be stored unless you think Assad
has a secret stash someplace and pulls them out, now and then, to do some
gassing. If that was the case, wouldn't it make more sense to bomb the
stash and prove to the rest of the world Assad had them rather than just
bomb an airfield and leave yourself open to the kind of criticism Trump
is getting? The idea that we can track everything the Syrian military
does but they have a secret chemical weapons store that Mossad, Turkey,
the CIA, FSB, and Saudi intelligence agencies don't know about seems
incredible.
Read
More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
D Trump
,
April 13, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT \n
@Steve Rendall
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a
factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011
to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the
refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
"It's likely covert interference started long before that." Yes, Randal.
About 2006.
300 Words
Considering everything that's been happening recently, I think there is a
strong possibility that this was either a false flag or they were simply
waiting for an excuse to attack Syria – anything would do. In fact,
Mattis had cooked up a plan to illegally board Iranian ships in
international waters as a kind of Gulf of Tonkin provocation. The plan
was only scrapped because it was leaked. Now, these maniacs are sending
more troops to Afghanistan, concealing the numbers of troops they are
deploying to the Middle East, dropping MOABs to scare other nations into
submission, and threatening to attack North Korea.
"Weeks ago, Trump's
defense secretary James Mattis was reportedly planning a brazen and
incredibly dangerous operation to board Iranian ships in international
waters. This would have effectively been an act of war. Apparently, the
only reason the Trump administration didn't carry it out was because the
plan leaked and they were forced to scuttle it – at least temporarily.
But that hasn't stopped the ratcheting up of tensions towards Iran ever
since he took office
On top of all this madness, 16 years after America's longest war in
history started, a top general has already testified to Congress that the
military wants more troops in Afghanistan to break the "stalemate" there.
Well before the end of the Trump administration, there will be troops
fighting and dying in Afghanistan who weren't even born when the 9/11
attacks occurred.
To further shield the public from these decisions, the Trump
administration indicated a couple weeks ago they have stopped disclosing
even the amount of additional troops that they are sending overseas to
fight. The numbers were already being downplayed by the Obama
administration and received little attention as the numbers continually
creeped up over the last two years. Now, the public will have virtually
no insight into what its military is doing in those countries."
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of
a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from
2011 to 2014.
You have a rather unrealistically late idea of when foreign groups
started backing the terrorists in Syria.
Qatar, to name just one, is on the record as having actively supported
the rebels militarily since at least April 2012, and the FT reported in
May 2013 it had already spent $1-3 billion backing the rebels:
Turkey started providing support to the "Free Syria Army" in 2011, and
jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda were openly calling for volunteers to
fight in Syria by February 2012.
This is all information in the public domain. It's likely covert
interference started long before that.
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and
an Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
100 Words
Dear Mr.Postol,
What I did miss in your excellent analysis are comments on White Helmets
and other rescuers handling sarin contaminated victims with bare hands
and no protective clothing. As you know sarin is a highly toxis chemical,
targeting the muscles and nervous system. Rescuers would have been
contaminated themselves and died probably within hours.
It's my take that these images were staged and filmed already before the
"attack". Could you please comment on this aspect?
Also listening to a chemical expert on Rt he stated that delivering sarin
or chlorine from the air would be totally ineffective. Could you possibly
elaborate on this as well?
Tom Van Meurs
New Zealand
I will pubish your article on my Facebook
Read
More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
Display All Comments
anon
,
April 14, 2017 at 12:09 am GMT \n
200 Words
@Steve Rendall
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an
Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are
responsible for most of the refugee problem.
Refugees s been pouring in Jordan and Turkey before moving to EU.
Refugees eas expected by saudi They put barbed wire I think to stop.
Syria initially saw a peaceful demonstration and before government
started using arms or ammunition , demonstration got violent with
assassination and killing of government forces Soon UK and USA were
demanding that Assad needed to surrender. Assad started using air force
to stem the tide of the violence .Assad offered amnesty and
reconciliation s All were discarded at the behest of Western ad Saudi and
Turkey Before that the 'Rat line" from Libya flooded the country with
weapons Long before that French FM exposed the plans of destabilizing
Syria . in 2007 Cheney was planning with Rice to start a civil war in
Syria and western Iraq. Arms were in plenty already
Assad had no choice but use all powers he had .
Why did refugees go to EU?
100 Words
@Alfa158
What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed
bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance
system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and
they are usually months or years old.
Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas
attack?
There is a glaring anomaly in that there appears to be a 5-hour time
difference between the gas release and the Syrian air attack – the former
at around 6am, the latter at 11am. This should be easy enough to
ascertain if one has the proper resources. If so it clears the SAA of
responsibility.
Xander USMC
,
April 14, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT \n
200 Words
White House Explanation of Alleged Syrian Strategy is Utter Nonsense.
I
have not really seen much comment on the White House explanation for why
the Syrians supposedly did this. The Paper discussed claims that the
Syrian government did this attack in "southern Idlib province" in
response to a threat "in response to an opposition offensive in northern
Hamah province that threatened key infrastructure." This explanation is
utterly nonsensical. If key infrastructure is being threatened in one
part of the country why did the government have an airstrike in another
area of the country–much less an entirely insignificant single rocket
attack that does not appear to have accomplished anything militarily. If
they were going to use gas why didn't they use it in Hamah where the "key
infrastructure" was allegedly being threatened?
Of course, there may be times when you can strike your enemies' supply
lines, (like MacArthur wanted to take out the bridge over the Yalu River)
but in any event I wish someone would ask the White House to explain this
statement. No one has yet to offer any coherent explanation for the
alleged actions of the Syrian government.
Read
More
Xander USMC
,
April 14, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@Brewer
There is a glaring anomaly in that there appears to be a 5-hour time
difference between the gas release and the Syrian air attack - the former
at around 6am, the latter at 11am. This should be easy enough to
ascertain if one has the proper resources. If so it clears the SAA of
responsibility.
If there is a time gap that merely is evidence that it was someone on the
ground. The U.S. claims a Syrian Sukoi-22 (an airplane so old the
Russians don't use it anymore) dropped ordinance (the alleged chemicals)
at the time of the attack. So if there was an airstrike by an Su-22 using
high explosives that could well have damaged chemicals on the ground.
There are also many possible explanations for a delay–we don't really
know very much so its is pure speculation, but for example, if a
warehouse storing chemical weapons by the rebels was damaged they may
have tried to remove the chemicals from the warehouse hours after the
attack and it was the attempt to move the damaged containers that
resulted in an "accident." It is also consistent with a set-up as it
would take time for rebels after the airstrike to engineer a chemical
attack.
Read
More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
alexander
,
April 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Xander USMC
White House Explanation of Alleged Syrian Strategy is Utter Nonsense.
I have not really seen much comment on the White House explanation for
why the Syrians supposedly did this. The Paper discussed claims that the
Syrian government did this attack in "southern Idlib province" in
response to a threat "in response to an opposition offensive in northern
Hamah province that threatened key infrastructure." This explanation is
utterly nonsensical. If key infrastructure is being threatened in one
part of the country why did the government have an airstrike in another
area of the country--much less an entirely insignificant single rocket
attack that does not appear to have accomplished anything militarily. If
they were going to use gas why didn't they use it in Hamah where the "key
infrastructure" was allegedly being threatened?
Of course, there may be times when you can strike your enemies' supply
lines, (like MacArthur wanted to take out the bridge over the Yalu River)
but in any event I wish someone would ask the White House to explain this
statement. No one has yet to offer any coherent explanation for the
alleged actions of the Syrian government.
Xander,
Let us assume, for arguments sake, you are President Assad.
Over the past year, with the assistance of Russian forces, you have
been able to mount decisive, significant victories against ISIS using
conventional weapons, and you are on the verge of reclaiming your country
from the assorted Jihadist's who are fragmenting it and destroying it.
If you are well aware the ONE action you could take, which might force
the hand of the most powerful military on the planet to descend upon
you Wouldn't you avoid it like the plague ?
Is there any strategic or tactical value for you to attempt it ?
200 Words
@Steve Rendall
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an
Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are
responsible for most of the refugee problem.
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters
were not much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees.
The comment to which you responded referred to deaths, not refugees.
But with regard to refugees, the UNHCR figures show that the number of
registered Syrian refugees was still below 1m at the end of March 2013
(it's now over 5 million), whereas as I pointed out above, the external
backing for the rebels that prevented the government restoring order and
really ratcheted up the fighting had markedly increased during 2012.
The blame for the devastation in Syria belongs with those who have
perpetuated the rebellion and prevented the Syrian government restoring
order, as Assad's father restored order following the uprising in 1982.
Primarily with the US as the global hegemon, and with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey and Israel who have directly or indirectly interfered to
seek regime change in Syria regardless of the human cost.
Those who have a genuine humanitarian concern and are not motivated by
ulterior strategic or political interests, should direct their criticism
and their pressure appropriately.
Read
More
bluedog
,
April 14, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
@Steve Rendall
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an
Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are
responsible for most of the refugee problem.
Well one would think it would be who ever started the dance not what
happened after the lights went out..
Xander USMC
,
April 14, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT \n
Let us assume, for arguments sake, you are
President Assad.
Over the past year, with the assistance of
Russian forces, you have been able to mount
decisive, significant victories against ISIS
using conventional weapons, and you are on the
verge of reclaiming your country from the
assorted Jihadist's who are fragmenting it and
destroying it.
If you are well aware the ONE action you could
take, which might force the hand of the most
powerful military on the planet to descend upon
you...Wouldn't you avoid it like the plague ?
Is there any strategic or tactical value for you
to attempt it ?
If there is....What is it ?
Right, but that is the strategic lack of sense,
but I'm pointing out the strike would make no
sense tactically either. If something was being
threatened arguably it would make tactical sense
to gas the area under attack–but not a minor
attack 50 miles away that does not appear to have
any relation to the alleged threat elsewhere. I
haven't even seen any confirmation of any threat
to "key infrastructure." Not to mention Syria
retook Aleppo without the need for
chemicals–wasn't that a lot more key than this
unidentified "key infrastructure"?
alexander
,
April 14, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Xander USMC
Right, but that is the strategic lack of sense, but I'm pointing out the
strike would make no sense tactically either. If something was being
threatened arguably it would make tactical sense to gas the area under
attack--but not a minor attack 50 miles away that does not appear to have
any relation to the alleged threat elsewhere. I haven't even seen any
confirmation of any threat to "key infrastructure." Not to mention Syria
retook Aleppo without the need for chemicals--wasn't that a lot more key
than this unidentified "key infrastructure"?
Yes ,
It would make the most sense were one to use chemical weapons as
a TACTIC, to use them in areas and situations where (as you suggest) one
would get the most "bang for their buck".
It is very clear to you,based on its location, this chemical attack
was almost meaningless tactically.
Right ?
So if this chemical assault was tactically absurd and strategically
suicidal, then what would be Assad's thinking by attempting it ?
200 Words
@Steve Rendall
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a
factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011
to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the
refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
Everything you wrote is pure BS. But I guess that is your purpose here.
Even Robert Fisk admitted there were Salafi jihadis involved from day
one. Al-Ciada in Iraq was involved from day one, etc.
There were and there are NO moderate 'rebels'. This ain't fucking star
wars.
Since early 2012, the Al-Nusra Front & co have been the main fighting
force trying to topple the Syrian government
. They are actually a
more serious threat to Syria than Daesh/is.
Increasingly from 2012 the Jihadis have been ever more heavily armed.
The key Jihadi groups all have armored forces, artillery, ATGMs, the only
thing they don't have is an air-force. Robert Fisk reported from the
front lines in 2013/14/15 re how oftentimes the Syrian army faced
militants that were as well armed and, in some cases, even better armed.
Armored Assault by Al-Nusra in Aleppo, Caught on Nusra Drone Camera
L.K
,
April 14, 2017 at 11:05 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@El Dato
Syria may be an autocratic shithole where women must know their place and
you better kowtow to the friendly state employee (or face a guided tour
of a dungeon) with the Assad family in power (indeed we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre
under daddy already) but
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels
are responsible for most of the refugee problem.
This is just jumping the shark.
People just don't like to stay in warzones and flattened cities, yes.
Your view of Syria is a grotesque caricature. Here's what former US
marine, Brad Hoff, found in Syria before the war:
DURING MY FIRST WEEKS in Damascus, I was pleasantly shocked. My
preconceived notions were shattered: I expected to find a society full
of veiled women, mosques on every street corner, religious police
looking over shoulders, rabid anti-American sentiment preached to
angry crowds, persecuted Christians and crumbling hidden churches,
prudish separation of the sexes, and so on. I quickly realized during
my first few days and nights in Damascus, that Syria was a far cry
from my previous imaginings, which were probably more reflective of
Saudi Arabian life and culture. What I actually encountered were
mostly unveiled women wearing European fashions and sporting bright
makeup - many of them wearing blue jeans and tight fitting clothes
that would be commonplace in American shopping malls on a summer day.
I saw groups of teenage boys and girls mingling in trendy cafes late
into the night, displaying expensive cell phones. There were plenty of
mosques, but almost every neighborhood had a large church or two with
crosses figured prominently in the Damascus skyline.
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
contacts in the area have told us this is not
what happened. There was no Syrian 'chemical weapons attack.' Instead, a
Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned
out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the
chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently
died ..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more
important –what they appear to believe happened."
- Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names
below)
You don't have to be a genius to figure
out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely
weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking
gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia
hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the
entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country
on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a
location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to
al Qaida. That's pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don't you think?
And it's not up to Assad to prove his
innocence either. That's baloney. The burden of proof rests with the
prosecution. If Trump and his lieutenants have evidence that the Syrian
President used chemical weapons, then– by all means– let's see it and be
done with it. If not, we have to assume that Assad is innocent, not because
we like Assad, but because these are the legal precedents that one follows
to establish the truth. And that's what we want, we want to know what really
happened.
Neither Trump nor the media care about the
truth, what they care about is regime change, which is the driving force
behind Washington's six year-long war on Syria. The fact that Washington has
concealed its support by secretly arming-and-training Sunni militias, does
not absolve it from responsibility. The US is totally responsible for the
mess in Syria. Without Washington's support none of this would have
happened. 7 million Syrians wouldn't have fled their homes, 400,000 Syrians
wouldn't have been killed, and the country would not be the anarchic
wastelands it is today. The United States is entirely is responsible for the
death and destruction of Syria. These are Washington's killing fields.
As we said earlier, there is no evidence
that Assad used chemical weapons against his people nor has there been any
investigation to substantiate the claims. The Trump administration launched
its Tomahawk missile barrage before consulting with the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which essentially preempted the organization
from doing its job. The administration's rejection of the normal
investigative procedures and rush to judgement reinforces the belief that
they know they have no case and are just peddling pro-war BS in the mad
pursuit of their geopolitical objectives.
Since we don't have an organization like
the OPCW to conduct an investigation, we should at least consider the
informed opinions of professionals who have some background in intelligence.
This doesn't provide us with iron-clad proof one way or another, but at
least it gives us an idea of some probable scenarios. Here's a quote from
former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest,
Philip Giraldi, who stated last week on the Scott Horton show:
"I am hearing from sources on the
ground, in the Middle East, the people who are intimately familiar with
the intelligence available are saying that the essential narrative we are
all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical
weapons on innocent civilians is a sham. The intelligence confirms pretty
much the account the Russians have been giving since last night which is
that they hit a warehouse where al Qaida rebels were storing chemicals of
their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the
casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear, and people
both in the Agency and in the military who are aware of the intelligence
are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely
misrepresented what he should already have known - but maybe didn't–and
they're afraid this is moving towards a situation that could easily turn
into an armed conflict." (The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and
Russia, Counterpunch)
We hear a very similar account from
retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former chief of Staff to General
Colin Powell. Here's what he said in a recent interview on the Real News
Network:
"I personally think the provocation was
a Tonkin Gulf incident .. Most of my sources are telling me, including
members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons –including
people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence Community–that
what most likely happened was that they hit a warehouse that they had
intended to hit and this warehouse was alleged to have to ISIS supplies
in it, and some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals ..
conventional bombs hit the warehouse, and due to a strong wind, and the
explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed
some people." ("
Lawrence
Wilkerson: Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic Politics
", Real
News Network)
Finally, we have the collective judgement
of 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names below) the
so-called Steering Group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity. Here's what they say:
"Our U.S. Army contacts in the area
have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian "chemical
weapons attack." Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria
ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a
strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where
many consequently died ..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been
saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened."
So, why is the administration so eager to
jump to conclusions? Why do they want to use such a sketchy incident to
justify an attack on sovereign nation that poses no threat to US national
security? What's really going on here?
ORDER IT NOW
To answer tha, we need to review an
interview with President Trump's new National Security Advisor, Lt. General
H.R. McMaster, that took on place on Sunday on Fox News. McMaster– you may
recall– recently replaced General Michael Flynn at the same position.
Flynn's failing was that he wanted to "normalize" relations with Russia
which the behind-the-scenes powerbrokers rejected out-of-hand and worked to
have him replaced with far-right wing militarist-neocon McMaster. Now,
McMaster is part of the one-two combo that decides US foreign policy around
the world. Trump has essentially dumped Syria in the laps of his two
favorite generals, McMaster and James "Mad Dog" Mattis who have decided to
deepen Washington's military commitment in Syria and intensify the conflict
even if it means a direct confrontation with Russia.
In the Fox interview, McMaster was asked a
number of questions about Trump's missile attack. Here's part of what he
said:
"The objective (of the strikes) was to
send a very strong political message to Assad. And this is very
significant because . this is the first time the United States has acted
directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to
Assad and to his sponsors .
He added,
"Russia should ask themselves, what are
we doing here? Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is
committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous
weapons available .Right now, I think everyone in the world sees Russia
as part of the problem." (Fox News with Chris Wallace)
Can you see what's going on? Trump's
missile attack was not retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin.
McMaster was saying as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming
for Assad, and you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for
you.' That's the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the
suffering of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was
putting Putin 'on notice'.
Like McMaster said, "this is the first
time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that
should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors ."
In other words, McMaster wants Putin to
know that he's prepared to attack the Syrian government and its assets
directly and, that, if Putin continues to defend Assad, Russian forces will
be targeted as well.
There was some confusion about this in the
media because UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
got their talking-points mixed up and botched their interviews. But the
Washington Post clarified the policy the next day by stating bluntly:
"Officials in the Trump administration
on Sunday demanded that Russia stop supporting the Syrian government or
face a further deterioration in its relations with the United States."
Bingo. That's the policy in a nutshell.
The issue isn't chemical weapons. The issue is Russia's support for Assad,
the leader who remains the target of US regime change plans. We are seeing a
fundamental shift in the policy from mainly covert support for CIA-backed
Sunni militias to overt military intervention. This is just the first volley
in that new war.
The media wants the American people to
believe that President Trump impulsively ordered the missile attacks in
response to the use of chemical weapons. But there's reason to suspect that
the attacks had been planned for some time in advance. As one blogger
pointed out:
"In the weeks before the missile
strikes, Trump met with the Saudis, the president of Egypt, and the King
of Jordan, while Secretary of State met with Turkish President Erdogan.
In other words, the administration met with the entire Middle East 'Sunni
alliance' just days before ordering the missile strikes. Coincidence?
Probably not. They were probably tipped
off and asked for their continued support.
Also, Trump waited until the evening that
he was having dinner with President Xi Jinping to launch the attacks. How's
that for timing?
Do you think that the announcement that
Trump just attacked Syria would have an impact on the two leaders'
conversation about North Korea? Do you think Xi might have seen the
announcement as a not-so-subtle threat of violence against the North unless
China forces its ally to make concessions?
Of course, he did. The man wasn't born
yesterday.
It seems unlikely that Trump's attack was
a snap decision made by an impulsive man. Instead, it looks like there was a
significant amount of planning that went on beforehand, including the
deploying of 400 additional Special Ops to Syria and 2,500 combat troops to
nearby Kuwait. It appears as though Washington had been building up its
troop-strength for some time before it settled on the right pretext for
taking things to the next level. As journalist Bill Van Auken noted at the
World Socialist Web Site:
"We have been here so many times before
that it is hardly worth wasting the time required to refute the official
story. It is now 14 years since the US launched its invasion of Iraq over
similar lies about weapons of mass destruction, setting into motion a
vast slaughter that has claimed the lives of over one million people and
turned millions more into refugees ..
Once again, as in the air war against
Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and
the attack on Libya in 2011, the United States has concocted a pretext to
justify the violation of another country's sovereignty " ("The Bombing of
Syria, Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site)
I have no way of knowing whether Assad
used chemical weapons or not, but I found Russian President Vladimir Putin's
analysis particularly interesting. Reporters asked Putin - "What is your
view about the use of chemical weapons in Syria?"
Putin answered-:
"You all know that the Syrian
government has repeatedly asked the international community to come and
inspect the sites where the rebels used chemical weapons. But they always
ignored those requests. The only time the international community has
responded, was to this last incident. So, what do I think?
I think we can figure out what's going
on by just using a little common sense. The Syrian army was winning the
war, in some places they had the rebels completely surrounded. For them
to throw it all away and give their trump card to the people who have
been calling for regime change is, frankly, a crock of shit.". (
Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
)
Putin's response to Trump's missile attack
has been subdued to say the least. He did issue a perfunctory presidential
press statement on the incident, but the tone of the statement was neither
incendiary or belligerent. If anything, it sounded like he found the whole
matter irritating, like the man who sits down to a picnic lunch and finds he
has to deal with pesky mosquito before he can eat. But, of course, this is
the way that Putin handles most matters. He's a master of understatement who
is not easily given to emotional outbursts or displays of rage. He's more
apt to scratch himself, roll his eyes and give a shrug of the shoulders,
than wave his fist and issue threats.
But from a strategic point of view,
Putin's measured response makes perfect sense, after all, the real battle
isn't going to be won or lost in Syria. It's much bigger than that. Putin is
challenging the present world order in which a disproportionate amount of
political and economic power has accrued to one unipolar center of
authority, a global hegemon that imposes its economic model wherever it goes
and topples sovereign states with a wave of the hand. Putin's task is to
build resistance among the vassals, form new alliances, and strengthen the
collective resolve for a different world where national sovereignty and
borders are guaranteed under an impartial set of international laws that
protect the weak as well as the strong.
That's Putin's real objective, to rebuild
the system of global security based on a solid foundation of respect for the
vital interests of each and every country. To accomplish that, Putin must
seem like a reasonable and trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and
stands by his friends even when they are under attack. That's why Putin
won't abandon Assad. It's because he can't.
Syria is the battlefield where competing
visions of the future meet head on. It's where the rubber meets the road.
Can you see what's going on? Trump's missile attack was not
retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying
as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming for Assad, and
you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for you.' That's
the message.
It's not only that. He adds that
everyone else in the world
sees
it that way.
That's an essential element to bully speak, and it's never missing from it.
They love to receive validation from their serfs (you could consider this
the "alpha's dessert", from a certain anthropological perspective, to be
tasted after every meal).
After the missile barrage, European "leaders" all took part in a bowing
down competition. The good general's expectations about them didn't go
unrealized.
Trump attacked Syria because he wants to rule the world by force of arms. He
pretended to prefer peace to war in order to get elected. He is not Hitler.
He is Dubya and Kushner is his Cheney.
FKA Max
,
April 13, 2017 at 4:06 am GMT \n
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the case against
Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak.
Probably not. [Sunni/Wahabbi/Army of Conquest actors] were probably
tipped off and asked for their continued support.
In which case the "accidental release of warehoused chemicals" makes only
sense if it was a "lucky strike". Seeing how this went down, so totally
perfectly, I would say "fully engineered 'incident' with actors on the
ground" is the likely explanation. See also
http://www.unz.com/author/theodore-a-postol/
of course.
It's just a matter of degree but the US went from
not-too-deadly-to-civilians false flags (some 60′s CIA "communist bombings"
in South Vietnam notwithstanding) to do-not-care-about-civilians false
flags, and I would say that happened under Obama.
> The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria
darn, those jolly
peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a history of thousands of
years without a single internal conflict . by the Americans. Everything by
the Americans.
> waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi
Jinping to launch the attacks. How's that for timing?
200 Words
I saw a red flag when Trump & the Pentagon inserted troops into Syria
without asking for permission from Bashar Al Assad. It seemed to me that the
regime change writing was on the wall and it was only a matter of time
before they found the right pretext or created a false flag (or fell for one
staged by the "rebels"). And lo and behold they found one straight out of a
Hollywood movie script where a real life Dr. Evil type dictator "gasses"
innocent women and children.
Then it was the usual faux outrage by the president, his cabinet members,
Congress and the fake, lapdog media while repeating unfounded allegations
24/7 as established truths.
"In the weeks before the missile strikes, Trump met with the Saudis,
the president of Egypt, and the King of Jordan, while Secretary of State
met with Turkish President Erdogan.
Those are all the wrong people to consult with since they are Sunni and
Assad is a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam. Of course they'd like
to see Assad deposed and a pliant Sunni stooge in his stead.
As for Israel, they prefer the bad guys not backed by Iran which would be
ISIS and other Wahabi cutthroats and who we now seem to be supporting given
Trump's radical shift on Syria.
100 Words
Really a very good article putting beyond doubt that Syria is being set up
for "Regime Change" and the Russians are being warned to keep out.
.. To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and
trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends
even when they are under attack. That's why Putin won't abandon Assad.
It's because he can't.
Well, maybe he could, rather than risk was WWIII. And at least the US
public would know for sure that their "No More ME Wars" candidate had
defected to the Neo-cons, with the American Establishment being the War
Party rather than the Russians.
Read More
Robert Magill
,
April 13, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT \n
100 Words
My scenario is a little different. I cannot believe that Donald Trump who
has demonstrated such spot on political instincts has suddenly lost his
touch. Consider: Premier Xi comes to visit. Deals are done. Russia and Syria
are notified during lunch the number of missiles and their intended
destination. This is all a show for Xi and Putin. After lunch the missiles
go off and about half reach the target.
Main runway undamaged, Syrian
planes resume flights next day. Mission accomplished! Target practice for
the Russians. Now we know and they know how many missiles they can scratch
in a cluster.
War hawks salivate. Everybody else has the vapors. Xi goes to Alaska for the
next big thing. Train service from the old world to the new.
200 Words
The world must attack the criminal China by serving the interest of the
imperialism/Zionism and the Trump regime for few petty bones.
China
abstained from the UN vote on Syria, where Trump regime bombed Syrian people
and frame Assad for the chemical attack where CIA trained terrorists in
Syria staged.
{President Donald Trump has praised China for its decision to abstain
from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning last week's
chemical attack on civilians in Syria, terming it an honour for the US.}
China is a criminal state a petty colony. Its leaders are cowards and
cannot be trusted. They are traitors to humanity. Everyone and every country
must BOYCOTT anything Chinese.
You don't want to help petty people.
Long live Russia for time being. China and Russia SOLD Libya and open the
road for the criminal West into Syria. China bears very big responsibility
for the survival of evil for
petty concessions.
Down with China, Down with its petty 'leaders' with mafia hear style. Shame
on China.
100 Words
@Karl
> The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria
darn, those jolly
peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a history of thousands of
years without a single internal conflict.... by the Americans. Everything by
the Americans.
> waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi
Jinping to launch the attacks. How's that for timing?
whatever it takes to make sure that Arabella gets good reviews in the
Beijing papers
darn, those jolly peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a
history of thousands of years without a single internal conflict . by the
Americans. Everything by the Americans.
@Miro23
Really a very good article putting beyond doubt that Syria is being set up
for "Regime Change" and the Russians are being warned to keep out.
..... To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and
trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends
even when they are under attack. That's why Putin won't abandon Assad.
It's because he can't.
100 Words
If the Americans intend to attack Syria, and attack the Russians if they
defend Syria, the Americans are going to get a bloody nose (and perhaps a
broken jaw).
What really annoys me is that the fatuous stuffed shirts in
Washington get off scot-free every time their ludicrous adventures go
haywire.
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could pass a law requiring that, whenever
an American military aggression fails, all those responsible must commit
seppuku in the traditional Japanese way?
Read More
Agent76
,
April 13, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Tom Welsh
If the Americans intend to attack Syria, and attack the Russians if they
defend Syria, the Americans are going to get a bloody nose (and perhaps a
broken jaw).
What really annoys me is that the fatuous stuffed shirts in Washington get
off scot-free every time their ludicrous adventures go haywire.
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could pass a law requiring that, whenever an
American military aggression fails, all those responsible must commit
seppuku in the traditional Japanese way?
It would be better if most of the world knew this instead. *All Wars Are
Bankers' Wars*
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how
many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central
banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand
why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign
nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Can you see what's going on? Trump's missile attack was not
retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying
as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming for Assad, and
you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for you.' That's
the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the suffering
of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was putting
Putin 'on notice'.
100 Words
@Eustace Tilley (not)
How he yearns for Imperial Dawn,
Our doubleplusgood-speaking Sean!
He bleats
and
he chatters
Of "kindly" cruel matters
While playing the Government pawn.
You are much too high minded for this world of filth and worms and lies. But
never mind–
[MORE]
Evil wings in ether beating;
Vultures at the spirit eating;
Things unseen forever fleeting
Black against the leering sky.
Ghastly shades of bygone gladness,
Clawing fiends of future sadness,
Mingle in a cloud of madness
Ever on the soul to lie.
Thus the living, lone and sobbing,
In the throes of anguish throbbing,
With the loathsome Furies robbing
Night and noon of peace and rest.
But beyond the groans and grating
Of abhorrent Life, is waiting
Sweet Oblivion, culminating
All the years of fruitless quest.
Probably not. [Sunni/Wahabbi/Army of Conquest actors] were probably
tipped off and asked for their continued support.
In which case the "accidental release of warehoused chemicals" makes only
sense if it was a "lucky strike". Seeing how this went down, so totally
perfectly, I would say "fully engineered 'incident' with actors on the
ground" is the likely explanation. See also
http://www.unz.com/author/theodore-a-postol/ of course.
It's just a matter of degree but the US went from
not-too-deadly-to-civilians false flags (some 60's CIA "communist bombings"
in South Vietnam notwithstanding) to do-not-care-about-civilians false
flags, and I would say that happened under Obama.
In the long run. these people are all dead of course, but it's still a
hardening of the veins.
EXACTLY. From Postol:
"This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same
as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the
tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on
the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.
If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin,
this
indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the
ground and not dropped from an airplane
."
Read More
utu
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT \n
"This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste
tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the
toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the
toothpaste skin ruptures.
If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin,
this
indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the
ground and not dropped from an airplane
."
Publishing Postol's article may serves a disinfo purpose that people will
start endless discussion how sarin was dispersed and start arguing about
wind direction and humidity on that day. The picture of the alleged shell on
which Postol's bases his whole analysis has no credibility whatsoever. Is he
that naive and stupid not too think about it or is he a tool of those who do
not want us think of other alternatives?
Shouldn't we ask ourselves what
the head choppers and their sponsors (CIA, MOSSAD, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) are
really capable of? Can they kill some civilians they rounded up somewhere by
gas or whatever? Sure they can? Do they have priors? Sure they have. Are
they media savvy and know how to create the event and report it? Sure they
do.
200 Words
Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on.
It's where the rubber meets the road.
actually syria is now the
battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all
to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.
the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the
tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves
this week.
washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.
the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are
preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight
but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to
battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.
the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools
errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he
potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us
military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.
his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.
@paraglider
Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on.
It's where the rubber meets the road.
actually syria is now the
battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all
to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.
the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the
tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves
this week.
washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.
the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are
preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight
but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to
battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.
the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools
errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he
potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us
military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.
his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.
700 Words
So funny, as Israeli ass licking as Bannon was, it wasn't even an
afterthought to have this nuisance removed from Trump's inner circle by
Kushner. I feel bad for those of you Americans who thought that your Savior
was gonna really pursue some sort of populist agenda once he was elected to
the White House. I know the Breitbart types figured that achieving something
akin to what Israel has achieved for Jews could happen here for white
Americans but the reality is that the Jews who run your country end up not
respecting you for letting them do it, and hoping that they might let you
have a seat at what should be your table is pathetic lol, these people are
your enemies .
"Also, of interest was the ouster of controversial Trump
strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council (NSC), taking
place only days before the administration's dramatic reversal on Syria.
Incidentally, Bannon's fall from grace – which has only accelerated in the
week since his removal from the NSC – was due to his in-fighting with
Kushner, proving that Kushner's influence in his father-in-law's
administration is much more powerful than previously thought. While it
remains unknown exactly why Kushner and Bannon were fighting, the drastic
policy change in "national security" days later seems to speak volumes.
While Bannon is hardly anti-war or anti-Israel, it seems that Kushner's
commitment to radical Zionism and neo-conservative ideas put him at odds
with Bannon – who considers himself a "populist" and is a long-time
conservative, unlike Kushner. Indeed, Kushner – until 2012 – was a key
supporter of Democrats, much like his father, the notoriously corrupt
Charles Kushner, and donated thousands to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and
Charles Schumer.
Israel First
White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, takes his seat to watch Vice
President Mike Pence administer the oath of office to U.S. Ambassador to
Israel David M. Friedman, March 29, 2017. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
However, Kushner had no problem changing parties as his political leanings
have been shown to only change in regard to one issue – Israel. In 2012, it
was Kushner's stalwart support for Israel, particularly Israel's far-right,
that ultimately led him to reject the Democrat Party and support Mitt
Romney's candidacy. "Rather than strengthen the nation's relationship with
Israel as the Arab world imploded, Mr. Obama treated Jerusalem as less a
friend than a burden," said the Kushner-owned New York Observer's
endorsement, summing up Kushner's view on the matter in language that Trump
would later echo.
Kushner's unwavering support for Israel is obvious as any cursory
examination of his background reveals. Kushner was raised in a wealthy
Zionist family and met powerful Israeli politicians including now Israeli PM
Benjamin Netanyahu in his teenage years. As an adult, Kushner has overseen
the finances of his family's "charitable" foundation which has donated
thousands to illegal Israeli settlements as well as thousands more to the
Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
This Oct. 24, 2016 photo, shows part of the Israeli settlement of Beit
El, near the West Bank city of Ramallah. Tax records show the family of U.S.
president-elect Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has donated tens
of thousands of dollars to Israeli settlement institutions in the West Bank
in recent years. (AP/Nasser Nasser)
Of particular interest among these donations was the $20,000 donation in
2013 to American Friends of Beit El Yeshiva, which supports one of the more
extremist illegal settlements in the West Bank. The chairman of this
organization, David Friedman, has been Trump's real estate lawyer for the
past 15 years and was selected by the Trump administration to serve as the
U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman is noticeable for being against the
two-state solution, a position that Kushner also shares according to
journalist Robert Parry and others.
With Kushner's "Israel first" mentality clear and his commitment to Zionism
obvious, it is hardly surprising that Kushner, and his wife Ivanka, would
push for a different approach to Syria than that promised by Trump during
the 2016 election."
200 Words
@paraglider
Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on.
It's where the rubber meets the road.
actually syria is now the
battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all
to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.
the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the
tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves
this week.
washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.
the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are
preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight
but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to
battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.
the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools
errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he
potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us
military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.
his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.
i will wager the syrian showdown between dc and russia goes no further.
Some really good points here, paraglider.
I believe a nations army will
always fight hardest to defend itself against an aggressive invasion An
entire nation (every man ,woman and child) will rally to the call when an
existential threat is upon them
They will make every sacrifice to survive ..
When its balls to the walls do or die .Ordinary people have shown a
mountain of courage where none would expect it.
When an aggressor army enter the fray, under false or dubious claims, no
matter how well disciplined its soldiers are, the integrity of rationale, or
lack there of, impinges on the hearts and minds of its warriors.
How can it not ?
We are human beings, after all ?
Cannot any of us imagine how potent and deadly a warrior Pat Tillman
might have been, defending OUR country..from an attacking invader ?
One deadly , vicious , Motherf#cker I can tell you that now .God rest his
soul.
There is nothing WORSE for a nation than to engage in aggressive war
under false or bogus pretenses..
Nothing WORSE --
It undermines the fighting spirit.. because deep down, every soldier
doesn't REALLY believe they have the RIGHT to win ..
ANN COULTER FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON
(4/12/2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45c408-s58A
It would be so nice if Ann Coulter stopped tossing her hair around and
bobbing her head generally, and Smiling all the time .of course, girlie
behavior can be forgiven since she is a girl, but
arguably she could be
more effective if the skin factor was reduced not necessarily eliminated and
she was better prepared with a few facts, numbers, etc. Carlson is great
given the need to keep his job, not for his money, but for Fox viewers who
are subject to Hannity and O'Reilly emotionalism. The other guy, is not as
bad, but he too starts to dance a bit Lou Dobbs.
Thank god for Tucker, his brilliance, his limits-pushing, his skepticism
right now about Syria Story per the Usuals. Evidence! he keeps on
saying .Yup.
400 Words
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on
Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground
invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the
neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course,
if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in
love, too and have a hard on for the ages.
Read More
Ivy
,
April 14, 2017 at 2:02 am GMT \n
"This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste
tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the
toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the
toothpaste skin ruptures.
@KenH
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
@KenH
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on
Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground
invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the
neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course,
if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in
love, too and have a hard on for the ages.
Eric Bolling called Assad "the butcher of Damascus"
100 Words
April 14, 2017 The Trump/Syria conundrum Will Trump deliver Deep State's
world war?
In appearance, Trump's April 6, 2017, missile attack on Syria
is the first step towards a regime change, a massive regional conquest, and
World War 3. In appearance, the event marked a point of no return for
Trump's presidency.
@KenH
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
@Rurik
Eric Bolling called Assad "the butcher of Damascus"
can't get more 'Hitler of the month' than that
Well, Assad Jr. used to run a halal meat shop when he was not busy learning
the basics of totalitarian governance. It was rather famous throughout
Damascus.
Read More
MEexpert
,
April 14, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT \n
100 Words
Since the neocons are so interested in partitioning every other country, we
should give them a partitioned country right here. We should break up the
United States into several countries. California and Texas already want to
secede. We should make New York as a separate country for the neocons and
the MSM. They can run it to ground anyway they like.
Read More
Miro23
,
April 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT \n
@MEexpert
Since the neocons are so interested in partitioning every other country, we
should give them a partitioned country right here. We should break up the
United States into several countries. California and Texas already want to
secede. We should make New York as a separate country for the neocons and
the MSM. They can run it to ground anyway they like.
Wait a second I live in N.Y. AND WE DON'T WANT THE BASTARDS HERE EITHER.
Read More
MEexpert
,
April 15, 2017 at 12:21 am GMT \n
@bluedog
Wait a second I live in N.Y. AND WE DON'T WANT THE BASTARDS HERE EITHER.
I feel sorry for you. You are going to have hard time getting rid of those
cockroaches.
"... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
"... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation
of an outside government.
Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has
proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention
doubtful.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led
war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning
the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.
Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed
Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors
to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation
into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding
regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically
it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching.
Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans
remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive.
If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its
cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just
wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians,
men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul,
dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale,
wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a
sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held
parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates
in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush
called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember
the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the
UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again,
yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the
unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to
be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their
aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this
chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce
officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his
hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied
the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on
a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical
statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our
democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other).
Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing
with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might
suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt
a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence
people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this
war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to
disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria,
has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic
British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British
and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure
will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982
Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations
who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it
became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian
can reveal.
His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were
party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains
very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to
render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the
innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war
commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not
another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We
would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter
if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are
all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia.
The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison
said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are the same people who elected
Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six
of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed
in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and
supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any
responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the
pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves
have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in
public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made
virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they
do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of
what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice
B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life
on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be
laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously
believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow
deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children
were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those
who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime,
but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and
by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime
change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis
raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all
of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is
to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all
of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily
with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that
they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing
democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources
and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence
that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east
and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help
of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep
State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced
and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking
about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with
him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every
oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced
millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia
against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal)
dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the
threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing,
the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam
Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of
civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations
like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community
service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman
going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be
worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt
to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be
it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to
comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority
vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be
entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should
require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance
should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid
and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants
to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the
same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders
who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century.
Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their
willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government,
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising
they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards
the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian
government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global
economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted
to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy',
the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising
the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia.
There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from
exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to
the right.
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about
the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it
is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed
commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/
Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against
Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the
face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians,
whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same
reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western
public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly
this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not
even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers
in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast
majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358
and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance,
of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January
2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps
it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime
change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately
islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is
a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls
short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct
in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't
rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations
of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job",
and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy
grail, "yellowcake uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and
perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative
government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government
in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected
leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure
public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as
Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and
give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to
mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility
of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country
indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly
seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs
or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how
Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since
then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat
acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including
the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper)
as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on
(Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways
the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left.
David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose
the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra
both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war.
The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are
clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely
the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as
well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together
to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google
it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google
it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his
fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk
about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in
the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our
disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight
against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot
travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or
antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than
Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely,
it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries
including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete
chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians,
Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad
ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud,
even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the
opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad
is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the
greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq,
where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy
always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether
the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask
the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who
have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc
2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They
can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around
the world changing who's in charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to
go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots
get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death
squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can
sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian
readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb
fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year.
The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in
the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set
up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record
for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's
untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum
will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially
pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of
the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit
of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately
elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan
have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing
so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost
of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical
control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the
job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white
minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people
themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms
race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree
in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US
did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have
happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later?
Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently
checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does
the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads
etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should
stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the
case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson
need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy
of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa
put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance
of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided
by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be
carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before
all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will
likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto!
A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any
Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically
insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals.
These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International
Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is
that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing
and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air
support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also
die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him
just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with
one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a
country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all
of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals
using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders
who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd
rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle
east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes
in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional
explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree
on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve
freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a
ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom,
then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there
is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those
regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields
were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos
online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in
now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the
city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was
moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when
they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got
no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through
western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single
american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's
world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of
Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our
intervention could scarcely make things any worse
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise
for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth
making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's
decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration
from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy,
something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough
to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates
in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have
fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation
of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet"
for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst
pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does
not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace
talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest
of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces?
I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime
change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to
the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons
to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as
Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care.
How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it
all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords
backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will
mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces
in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting
back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions
from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and
with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its
forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And
what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of
Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world
demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in
whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the
Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding
the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed
the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East
and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive
under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia,
Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment,
other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete
result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards
Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the
Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as
Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No
one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we
want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the
last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than
desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests
and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps
only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought
together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment
from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism
and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great
track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy
to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to
support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious
power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy
disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians
who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a
dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty
much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record
on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called
''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because
of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the
takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign
jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after
they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save"
and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading
and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts
to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who
out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles
is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure
that makes things drastically worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that
someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent
supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and
ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and
incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and
abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that
later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to
help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's
a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes
sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally
serving him, aren't limitless.
"... Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times over. ..."
"... Tulsi is a really courageous woman. It is tough to fight against the neocon "swamp". Trump already folded. She is still standing. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times
over.
Gabbard is right to be skeptical of the usefulness and righteousness of missile strikes, but deeply stupid to carry water for
the denials by Assad and the Russian state media about complicity for the chemical weapons attacks.
Anne, real skepticism is when you question your own heroes and assumptions.
Both mainstream US parties are war
parties, it requires huge lying, faulty logic and misplaced
faux morality to justify state sanctioned, industrial scale
murder.
'If you took the money out of war there would be less of
it.'
Obama doctrine is wrong there have been no instances of
'unjust peace' since Cain killed Abel.
Tulsi is one of the very very few Dems that I will actually listen to
what they have to say. Perhaps she would relocate to AZ and take
McCain's seat. That would be nice.
LOL!!! Stupid is as stupid does!!! Just more proof that liberals are not
capable of critical thinking, even when one of there own is waking up to the
MIC action!!!!
There are so many problems with the propaganda campaign against
Assad getting unrolled now.
(1)
You can't treat exposure to sarin with your bare hands without falling ill/dead
yourself, as the White Helmets
were apparently doing
in the aftermath of the Idlib attack.
(2) As Syrian war reporter @Partisangirl noticed, some journalists
were apparently discussing
a chlorine sarin attack before it actually
happened.
(3) It is eerily reminescent of the aftermath of the 2013 Gouta
attacks, in which the Western media and neocon and neocon-in-all-but-name
politicians and punditry parroted the official line that Assad's troops were
responsible even though consequent journalistic work by
Sermour Hersh
and
MIT
raised serious doubts over the veracity of that allegation.
(5) Unlike in 2013, Assad is now winning. Why on Earth now, of all
times, would he resort to poison gas – one of the few things he can do to that
is capable of provoking a strong Western reaction –
just to kill all of 75 civilians
?
It just makes no sense.
So one can't help but treat Nikky Haley's
melodramatic performance
at the UN with skepticism. The idea that the
poisoning was due to a bomb hitting a chemical weapons manufactory seems more
plausible.
Trump's initial non-interventionist rhetoric on assuming the
Presidency was encouraging, as was his promotion of other anti-war figures such
as
Tulsi Gabbard
. However, the latest response of the US administration,
including Trump himself, is not giving any cause for optimism:
I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big
impact on me, big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been
watching it, and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that And I
will tell you it's already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad
has changed very much.
To be sure, one might view this as a merely ritualistic expression
of outrage, but also coming on as it does on the eve of Steve Bannon's
dismissal from the National Security Council one can't help but start having
dark thoughts on whether the deep state might be triumphing after all.
On Trump – the less he intends to do, the more strongly he positions
himself.
So one way to interpret his remarks is that he is occupying a position that
fully takes advantage of anti-Assad sentiment, but with no intent to act on
it at all.
100 Words
NEW!
@Chuck
So Trump the hard-headed America Firster morphs into weepy bleeding heart
interventionist?
The Empire needs better writers.
I've been
pretty
solid
in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas"
(defeats/betrayals).
This is the first time however that I am genuinely
questioning his intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
El Dato
,
April 6, 2017 at 12:57 am GMT \n
100 Words
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this offensively low-brow and loud theater
performance to give a "casus belli" and a "reason for responsibility to
protect".
100% repeat of Obama's "redline" performance. Maybe it will go through
now, it depends on the levels of sellout.
The always-reliable yuropeans are onboard, same as with the Lybian
"Ghadaffi is distributing Viagra to rape his own people" somewhat-liberating
free-for-all. Clearly the cheques have arrived.
Meanwhile, the bombing of Yemen on behalf of the Saudis, which in a sane
world would result in US military personnel and politicians getting
acquainted with the wrong end of firing squads, is merrily ongoing.
Felix Keverich
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT \n
100 Words
Well, let's see: Tillerson makes a statement that overthrowing Assad is no
longer a priority. Neocons disagree. And within days this "chemical attack"
happens, the biggest chemical attack in Syria – we are told – since 2013.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I think it's possible that chemical attack did happen, and it was the CIA
or its terrorist buddies that arranged to poison these children. Unlike
Assad, these actually have a plausible motive – manipulating Trump and
influencing his policy.
Backwoods Bob
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:34 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
I have become disheartened.
Hillary was the end of America as we knew it. But Trump is far too much
of an Empire First, not America First president at the moment.
El Dato
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:44 am GMT \n
200 Words
It's WMD and false flag attacks all over again. How short is the public's
memory? I suppose Trump is caught in a pincer movement here, false flag or
provocation carried out by the 'deep state' or parts of the so-called
'intelligence community' on the one hand, coordinated with the mass media on
the other who publicize it and beat the drums demanding that something must
be done, it's a crisis, etc. They're trying to force his hand. It'll be
interesting to see how he handles this. On the face of it, for a person
who's shown a healthy level of skepticism he's coming across as a bit too
credulous. The UN ambassador Haley is a really embarrassing idiot who is
undermining the very person that gave her this wonderful platform for her to
be a star of. People gave her adulating coverage in the past as an
up-and-coming talent but has been revealed to be merely a blabbering
airhead. The pool of talent for Trump to pick from is apparently quite thin
so finding some good people is looking to shape up as a major challenge.
Yevardian
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:01 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
As I thought at the time, and Ron Unz also noted here, Trump was either an
utter moron or completely indifferent to actual policy to promote a
facelesss POS like Mike Pence to VP.
I think it should be increasingly obvious that he's a gauche blowhard who's
merely a weathervein for whomever advised him last.
jimbojones
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT \n
100 Words
Trump should watch out. He was voted in exactly because people were
profoundly disgusted by the Obama/Clinton Libyan monstrosity, and because
people wanted Washington to stop funding terrorists to topple the legitimate
government of Syria.
Assad didn't gas civilians. The very idea is moronic.
He has won the war. Trump can use Assad as an ally in the fight against
everybody's common enemy ISIS. Or Trump can betray his electorate and ruin
his presidency by doing something stupid in Syria.
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
This betrayal is for real and final. Stop projecting your wishful thinking
on Trump. He never was the man many of us were imagining. This were just our
projections. Projections of people who wanted to have some hope. The most
important is that Bannon is out or on his way out. W/o Bannon there is
nobody else. Just your usual dumb and vile republicans are all what is left
plus some soft hearted libs in Ivanka faction. That's all. It's over!
Besides what a great opportunity for Trump. Just do the Syria and everything
will be forgiven and forgotten. Including Susan Rice, OK? We will not have
to impeach you and replace with Pence.
Not sure about this guy but he claimed 2 days ago:
Published on Apr 3, 2017
Is the US Preparing to Invade Damascus?
As absurd as this may sound the evidence seems to stack up in favor of
this scenario of a US led invasion of Damascus, Syria. The movement of US
desert Camo military equipment was done in a way to avoid detection by
Russia. First to Germany to make it appear as a buildup on Russia's
border, then to Poland final to a port in Romania, then reloaded at set
sail to Beirut Lebanon where Damascus comes into view. All the while
Israeli US Italian and UAE military work in Greece to overcome Russia
s300 air defense system. Israel moves their forces into the Golan for
supposed drills. All troops in position Damascus to be hit next.
If so, the staged gas attack is just a part of a much bigger scheme that was planned months
ago with Trump knowledge. No more talking about hat the Deep Sate is boxing Trump in. No, Trump
is on it.
200 Words
If there were 3 million parallel universes out there, then I guess maybe
in one of them Assad would have been responsible for the chemical attack
on the Syrian civilians, but even then I doubt it. For the sake of
argument, let's say he did it and as a result almost a hundred people
died. So then I guess it's justifiable to go in and kill thousands and
thousands of civilians to punish Assad for killing less than a hundred of
them.
When "dictator" like Assad kills people, he does it in an undemocratic
way – with chemical weapons, which is inhumane. When the greatest
democracy does it – it's ok, because it's for a just cause and with
weapons approved by the Geneva Convention. And if at the end of the
carnage awaits the prospect of democracy – then no price in civilian
lives is too high. Something that Madeleine Albright would call a price
worth paying.
When a democracy kills people – it doesn't use chemical weapons, it
uses bombs, bullets and rockets and that's what really makes a
difference. I think most people would find it very objectionable to be
killed by chemical weapons, but with bullets – it's almost a breeze, and
then when you factor in that you are possibly dying in order to bring
democracy to your country, I am surprised that they actually don't
volunteer for such an honor.
Seraphim
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
Not everyone was fooled by the supposed intentions and goodwill of Trump.
F. William Engdahl, "The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency"
The exact repetition of Colin Powell's vial of anthrax performance
shows that nobody gives a hoot about 'making sense'. Assad must go! Nah,
hang. And those who 'back' him and 'would not escape responsibility for
this'. Be concerned, very concerned. The Petersburg attack just missed
the 'real culprit'.
Seamus Padraig
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:21 am GMT \n
Well, people, it's all over. I had a bad feeling back when Trump let go
of Gen. Flynn. Now my worst suspicions have been confirmed: the deep
state has won. The Trump we elected is no more ..
Seraphim
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:09 am GMT \n
300 Words
It is known that the apparition of Haley's Comet presage wars. Do we have
it? No, but we have Nikki Haley.
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Feb. 16, 2017:
""I just put out to the members of the Seucrity Council to help me
understand: When we have so much going on in the world, why is it that
every single month we're going to sit down and have a hearing where all
they do is obsess over Israel?
The Security Council is supposed to discuss how to maintain international
peace and security. But at our meeting on the Middle East, the discussion
was not about Hizballah's illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon. It was
not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not
about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad
accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No,
instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true
democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand
that's how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades.
I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this
anymore. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United
States for Israel. I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined
to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias. We will never repeat the
terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council
resolutions to condemn Israel. Instead, we will push for action on the
real threats we face in the Middle East
It is the UN's anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change. The
United States will not hesitate to speak out against these biases in
defense of our friend and ally, Israel".
100 Words
Always check the timing. Now Globalists did realize that they cannot
impeach Trump.
So?????????????????
They decided with this false flag to reeducate him.
Some people claim that US wars in Levant are for israel.
I am not sure of anything.
But I do think that real power is hiding behind of the curtain.
Dana Thompson
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT \n
100 Words
On every occasion like this when a chemical weapons atrocity causes a
stir, discussion always neglects the question I find most interesting,
which is: we all know that traditional methods, like bullets that make
heads explode like overripe melons, and shrapnel that flings entrails
into picturesque sausage-like festoons are licit and acceptable to
enlightened humanity, but use of chemicals is outside the pale of
decency. But why is that? I think this article contains clues to the
answer, but I can't seem to follow the exact line of reasoning:
J.B.S. Haldane on chemical warfare
German_reader
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:38 am GMT \n
100 Words
I don't know, maybe Assad/his government felt they could now get away
with it and could use chemical weapons to terrorize and punish the
opposition. But even if Assad's military is responsible, how does this
incident really change anything? Tbh I don't care if Assad's military
gasses a few dozen children, and no remotely sane person would regard
this as legitimate reason for intervention. And the outrage is absurdly
hypocritical given what's going on in Yemen with direct US support.
Really disappointing how Trump seems to be preparing an intervention,
total madness.
Sergey Krieger
,
April 6, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
He had vision? Doubtfully. Just wanted to win elections and thus was
pressing all right buttons.
I had no doubt for a second it was all for show.
American history starting with Indian treaties is one of broken promises
and lies.
karl1haushofer
,
April 6, 2017 at 9:55 am GMT \n
100 Words
@JL
The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia.
Similarly, going after North Korea, where the US has also been saber
rattling recently, would be very bloody and could very well go nuclear. I
think the first comment on this thread maybe had it right, this is the
opposite of "talk soft and carry a big stick". If I'm wrong, well, it's
been a good run for humanity and sorry to everyone with children and
hopes and plans for the future.
AK, maybe it's time to dust off and update your nuclear war post?
"The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "
The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not
responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think –
whether justified or unjustified – that if Russian military, or a close
Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.
Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military
and political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I
mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of
Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea
animalogic
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:00 am GMT \n
100 Words
@jimbojones
Trump should watch out. He was voted in exactly because people were
profoundly disgusted by the Obama/Clinton Libyan monstrosity, and because
people wanted Washington to stop funding terrorists to topple the
legitimate government of Syria.
Assad didn't gas civilians. The very idea is moronic. He has won the war.
Trump can use Assad as an ally in the fight against everybody's common
enemy ISIS. Or Trump can betray his electorate and ruin his presidency by
doing something stupid in Syria.
The choice is his.
Will this be the final test of trump. ? If he follows the neo-con's into
this minefield can anyone doubt - WHATEVER the EXACT reasons why - that
his independence from the deep state is basically neglible ?
I feel sorry for those who "believed" (they did have good reason to
believe, given the putrid alternative .)
If my fears are realized, I just hope that the millions who supported him
reject BOTH of the major (sides of the same business) party.
SOMETHING has to push Americans out of the unholy rut they have been in
for decades now .
animalogic
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT \n
@Cyrano
If there were 3 million parallel universes out there, then I guess
maybe in one of them Assad would have been responsible for the
chemical attack on the Syrian civilians, but even then I doubt it. For
the sake of argument, let's say he did it and as a result almost a
hundred people died. So then I guess it's justifiable to go in and
kill thousands and thousands of civilians to punish Assad for killing
less than a hundred of them.
When "dictator" like Assad kills people, he does it in an undemocratic
way – with chemical weapons, which is inhumane. When the greatest
democracy does it – it's ok, because it's for a just cause and with
weapons approved by the Geneva Convention. And if at the end of the
carnage awaits the prospect of democracy – then no price in civilian
lives is too high. Something that Madeleine Albright would call a
price worth paying.
When a democracy kills people – it doesn't use chemical weapons, it
uses bombs, bullets and rockets and that's what really makes a
difference. I think most people would find it very objectionable to be
killed by chemical weapons, but with bullets – it's almost a breeze,
and then when you factor in that you are possibly dying in order to
bring democracy to your country, I am surprised that they actually
don't volunteer for such an honor.
Excellent response. Don't forget though, depleted uranium, cluster bombs,
napham & Daisy cutters are also symbols of our humanity & love of
democracy.
It just makes you feel so warm, even gooey, inside, doesn't it ?
Diversity Heretic
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT \n
100 Words
Whether or not the attack was a false flag, that picture of Nikki Haley
with the photo of the dead child ought to be very high on the list of
"Why Women Should Not Be Allowed Anywhere Near Diplomacy." First, Angela
Merkel consents to the massive invasion of her country because of a dead
Syrian child. Now Nikki Haley wants Americans to be put at risk to kill
more Syrians because of another dead Syrian child. Otto von Bismarck was
right, women's roles should be confined to children (their own), the
church and the kitchen.
annamaria
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT \n
100 Words
@Ram
Reminiscent of the bombing of Deir Az Zohr by the US in support of ISIS
when Kerry stepped out of the path laid out for him by the NeoCons.
" the path laid out for him by the NeoCons."
Agree.
Paul Craig Roberts' invective against ziocons: "The entire
history of the 21st century is the history of Washington's wars
instigated by Zionist neoconservatives and the state of Israel against
Muslim countries. So far Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and
parts of Syria and Pakistan, have been destroyed by gratuitous military
attacks that are, without any doubt, war crimes under the Nuremberg
Standard established by the United States. The hoax "war on terror" has
not only murdered and dislocated millions of peoples, producing waves of
Muslim immigration over the Western World, but also destroyed Western
civil liberty."
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/05/germany-rip/
Mrs. Haley and other non-Jewish warriors like McCain and Lindsey
Graham are indeed the whores in service of the "chosen" and mega war
profiteers, from weaponry peddlers to the financial "great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity:"
annamaria
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:37 am GMT \n
@karl1haushofer
"The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "
The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not
responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think -
whether justified or unjustified - that if Russian military, or a close
Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.
Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military and
political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I
mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of
Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea...
Russian federation has been trying to avoid a full-blown military
conflict that the ziocons have been provoking with the vicious audacity.
The lying, thieving, criminal congress, run by the CIA /Mossad, is not an
honest partner. Russia is cornered.
Joe Wong
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:46 am GMT \n
100 Words
@michael dr
On Trump - the less he intends to do, the more strongly he positions
himself.
So one way to interpret his remarks is that he is occupying a position
that fully takes advantage of anti-Assad sentiment, but with no intent to
act on it at all.
The only guy used chemical weapons in wars against civilians on record is
the USA during the Vietnam War; Agent Orange, Agent White and Agent
Rainbow are still wrecking havoc in Vietnam. The only guy conduct false
flag ops to blame the victims for violating human rights via its NED
sponsored NGOs then wage reckless wars against the victims on the moral
high ground is the USA and its NATO partners.
This poisonous gas attack on Syria civilians bears too many
similarities to the past records of the USA and its NATO partners'
behaviour.
JL
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:48 am GMT \n
100 Words
@karl1haushofer
"The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "
The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not
responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think -
whether justified or unjustified - that if Russian military, or a close
Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.
Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military and
political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I
mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of
Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea...
You realize you're talking about nuclear war, right? Why any rational
person would hope for that truly escapes me. No, the only thing we can
hope for is that there are people in deciding roles in the American
military and political circles who still remember about the concept of
MAD.
100 Words
NEW!
@JL
The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia.
Similarly, going after North Korea, where the US has also been saber
rattling recently, would be very bloody and could very well go nuclear. I
think the first comment on this thread maybe had it right, this is the
opposite of "talk soft and carry a big stick". If I'm wrong, well, it's been
a good run for humanity and sorry to everyone with children and hopes and
plans for the future.
AK, maybe it's time to dust off and update your nuclear war post?
Heh.
I had an outline of a post in my drafts on how a US-Russian clash in
Syria might escalate, which I expected to write if HRC won. I might brush
that
off.
I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so long
as the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't have any
formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation in Syria
proper will be justifiable – and well-advised, considering massive American
aeronaval dominance in the region.
400 Words
Key items showing false-flag nature of the Syrian gas attack absurdly
attributed to Assad
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about
the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama
countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if
severely-toxic gas attack had occurred, as Anatoly Karlin notes above
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at
the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured
flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite
facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in
Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A
chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it
can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has
turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos shot
in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(6) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White
Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al
Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets
"have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco,
using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
–
Very regrettably, Russia & its potentially powerful media, are playing
their traditional Israeli-serving role of being inexcusably timid in
denouncing blatant false-flag deception & fraud Just as Russia signed off
on killing Qaddafi & hurling Libya into mass death & chaos
Destruction of Syria & Assad serves long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli
Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia
state Israel
Also, major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria -
Map of pipeline alternatives thru Syria:
(a) Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria
(b) US-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria
I had an outline of a post in my drafts on how a US-Russian clash in Syria
might escalate, which I expected to write if HRC won. I might brush
that
off.
I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so long as
the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't have any
formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation in Syria
proper will be justifiable - and well-advised, considering massive American
aeronaval dominance in the region.
Of course this would be a humiliation for Putin on at least the order of
Euromaidan if not greater, so he will probably be forced to respond somehow,
somewhere.
Please bear in mind, O our host, that Gen. Dunford, chairman of the JCS,
said (in October?) that for the US to set up no fly zones in Syria would
mean that we are at war with Syria and Russia. The next day in a NBC radio
interview Lady MacBeth once more advocated for such no fly zones.
Unlike
the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump administration will
actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly and Mattis. For the last
generation, the US has stalked more or less unopposed on the world stage,
throwing its weight around as it pleases. No one, we think, can oppose us!
Well, that's nice and all, but I haven't forgotten the Cold War and the
threat of nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Russia, and I'll bet you a
meal of shashlik, lepeshki and vodka that Mattis, Dunford and Kelly haven't
either.
400 Words
Gordian Knot time. I don't know for sure what it is about politics that
turns knowledgeable people of different stripes into Revusky's Hi IQ Idiots.
They have done controlled tests on this phenomena with brain wiring and
visual stimuli to show that an emotional element interferes with (or
dominates) logical thinking when political themes or visuals are invoked.
The big boys must have known this through other wisdom when they allowed for
universal suffrage but that is an argument for another day.
Just as the
leftist intellectuals were urinating with glee onto their Birkenstocks when
Buckwheat won in 2008, so did the intellectual right over their Red Wings
when Drumpf prevailed. Emotions.
I hold ALL politicians in extreme contempt and thereby reflexively limit
my exposure to the reality show charade of elections. Needless to say, no
emotions invoked. Then inevitably I get to roll my eyes when real and honest
intellectuals on the left gnashed their teeth when the Nobel Peace prize
laureate doubled up on foreign wars and reneged on domestic issues and
likewise get do so when otherwise intelligent writers such as Mr. Karlin
reveal surprise and disappointment with Trump.
It is all so painfully obvious that a system which has been hijacked and
has steadily degenerated for over 200 years cannot be fixed through the same
(but negatively expanded) rules by simply producing new personality.
Einstein's definition of insanity fully displayed.
When asked what I think of Trump from election day +1 until the present,
my answer remains the same. The upside is that his success did a monumental
job in exposing 'professional' politicians of all stripes as being corrupt
and worthless beyond words and that he exposed the media as being bought and
paid for whores who walk in lockstep from the highest perch of the 'gray
lady'
right down to the local community papers even in foreign countries.
The downside is that he will inevitably deflate and disappoint those
people who arguably might have made a difference. Apathy and cynicism will
ensue, resulting in a reversion to the status quo. It has always been the
mob's destiny when the mob supposedly gets to decide. So after some possibly
honest Trumpian burps it will be business as usual (Syria as just one
example).
@JL
You realize you're talking about nuclear war, right? Why any rational person
would hope for that truly escapes me. No, the only thing we can hope for is
that there are people in deciding roles in the American military and
political circles who still remember about the concept of MAD.
Are you saying that Russia should allow its forces in Syria to be attacked
or bombed without retribution?
Read More
The Scalpel
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT \n
100 Words
@The Scalpel
Trump is losing the plot
It is quite possible that this ENTIRE incident is a staged production. Film
and special effects people are certainly capable of it. Assuming any of this
is credible before seeing objective evidence only reinforces the narrative.
On the surface of things, it seems illogical and obviously self-defeating
and unnecessary for the Syrian government to have done this. One should
withold any judgement until the facts are in
Jim Christian
,
April 6, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT \n
300 Words
@Seamus Padraig
Well, people, it's all over. I had a bad feeling back when Trump let go of
Gen. Flynn. Now my worst suspicions have been confirmed: the deep state has
won. The Trump we elected is no more ..
Either that, or there's "real estate" at Arlington Trump has been offered,
say a 6′LX4′WX6′D up there on that hill above the Shining City in Arlington
Cemetery. Up there next to Jack and Bob Kennedy who, whatever ELSE you think
of them were the last two to say No to a bullshit war.
Real estate in Arlington is what those who oppose wars earn for
themselves. You may have silver and gold or you may have lead. Pick one. And
so he has.
Rule #1 is, war for profit goes on. Or else.
Rule #2 is, Presidents (or candidates as we saw with RFK) will never change
Rule #1 and survive the attempt. This is our country for the past century
and a half. I'm sure the armorers made themselves a pretty penny during the
civil war. Ok, ok, so half a million died, millions maimed, all White
Americans (don't want to hear about the Black squads, sorry). but cannon
balls and black powder makes good money. Nothing has changed since. And
they'll risk lots of casualties toying with a nuclear confrontation without
blinking an eye. Lots of money in rebuilding cities, too.
I really hate our ruling classes these days. If they do this with Syria,
start in on Russia with skirmishes and outright war, we'll know we're ruled
by evil. There's no need for any of it. We "won". We leveled the Middle East
in response to 9/11. You'd think it's enough from looking at the carnage and
destruction we've wrought on them. But it's never enough, not anymore.
JL
,
April 6, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@karl1haushofer
Are you saying that Russia should allow its forces in Syria to be attacked
or bombed without retribution?
What I'm saying is that I can't envision a scenario whereby an American
attack on Russian forces in Syria doesn't lead to all out nuclear war and I
sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, we can continue this
discussion in the afterlife. Mr. Karlin seems to have different ideas and I
would very much like to read the post on various escalation scenarios that
he had worked up in case of a Clinton victory. As it is and even before any
escalations, US and Russian forces operating in such close vicinity seems to
me extremely dangerous.
karl1haushofer
,
April 6, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@JL
What I'm saying is that I can't envision a scenario whereby an American
attack on Russian forces in Syria doesn't lead to all out nuclear war and I
sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, we can continue this
discussion in the afterlife. Mr. Karlin seems to have different ideas and I
would very much like to read the post on various escalation scenarios that
he had worked up in case of a Clinton victory. As it is and even before any
escalations, US and Russian forces operating in such close vicinity seems to
me extremely dangerous.
But don't you realize that this type of thinking gives America a leeway to
attack Russia whenever it pleases?
Your way of thinking goes something
like this: "America can attack Russia because it knows that Russia cannot
retaliate because it would start WW3″.
You could write a book about deception based on those four words alone.
"Persons with knowledge" is a phrase calculated to inspire envy and respect
in the great unwashed, who of course have no knowledge. But wait a moment!
Who are those "persons with knowledge"? They seem to be unnamed and
undefined – could that be deliberate?
And then we learn that those "persons with knowledge"
*believe*
something. But wait a moment! If they have knowledge, why would they be
reduced to "believing"? Wouldn't they actually, well,
*know*
?
So the tweet tells us that some undefined people, who may or may not
exist, know something and believe presumably, something else that they
don't know about.
100 Words
When ignoramuses like Morell (a pampered villain) get power over resources
of an empire like the US, the whole humanity becomes endangered. The
greatest danger is a rule of the opportunistic incompetent. It is doubtful
that the all-powerful CIA has any knowledgeable and principled persons left
among its rank anymore, after the years of careful selection for
opportunists/profiteers. At least there is no way the ziocons, war
profiteers and their families will be able to survive the next world war.
Psychopaths are anti-life by definition.
JL
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT \n
300 Words
@karl1haushofer
But don't you realize that this type of thinking gives America a leeway to
attack Russia whenever it pleases?
Your way of thinking goes something
like this: "America can attack Russia because it knows that Russia cannot
retaliate because it would start WW3".
May I ask that why shouldn't America worry about starting WW3 if it
attacks Russia?
Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion
of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot
because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in
3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about
starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.
During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct
military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something
has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now
is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled
unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same
way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation
you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US
to go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's
situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve
of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was
probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in
Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow
Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some
influence in the near abroad.
100 Words
@annamaria
Russian federation has been trying to avoid a full-blown military conflict
that the ziocons have been provoking with the vicious audacity. The lying,
thieving, criminal congress, run by the CIA /Mossad, is not an honest
partner. Russia is cornered.
Russia is cornered.
I think it is exactly the other way around. Russia has options, US
doesn't, apart from the fact that it lost all international subjectivity and
is now nothing more than Israel's "subsidiary". Russia is not desperate, US
establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with
Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war–it is her MO for
decades. US desperation for this "war" with Russia has very logical
explanations, granted that some of the factors in all this US insanity are,
indeed, irrational (and hysterical) and metaphysical in nature.
DanFromCt
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@Felix Keverich
Well, let's see: Tillerson makes a statement that overthrowing Assad is no
longer a priority. Neocons disagree. And within days this "chemical attack"
happens, the biggest chemical attack in Syria - we are told - since 2013.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I think it's possible that chemical attack did happen, and it was the CIA or
its terrorist buddies that arranged to poison these children. Unlike Assad,
these actually have a plausible motive - manipulating Trump and influencing
his policy.
The timing is more than suspicious so I tuned in Fox News for straight up
false flag narrative, and sure enough there was Sen. Bob Corker saying Assad
was a monster gassing his people and cutting off their genitals, with Corker
calling for Putin to repudiate Assad to the thanks of Bill Hemmer–end of
script. Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that Corker more resembles
that stuttering, court-appointed lawyer in My Cousin Vinny than any
statesman?
The entire history of the development of the rules of evidence in law,
science, and politics, a signature achievement of Western Civilization, is
being thrown away and hardly anyone notices or cares. Today a canned,
identical, and obviously pre-scripted narrative available within minutes of
these events goes unquestioned, even when, as in this latest theater, at
least one announcement was made before the event.
I'm also sickened by the concurrent Wounded Warriors theater at the White
House because this empty jingoistic stunt may signal that our military may
become active on the ground over there and therefore Trump's neo handlers
are already selling the inevitable loss of limbs as a sign of our
righteousness instead of the reality, which is that our soldiers lose their
lives and limbs so good Isrseli boys need not.
cali
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:03 pm GMT \n
600 Words
Clearly the false flag committed by none other than the Deep State not only
against Assad but also against the boogeyman for all that is wrong – the
Putin government – continues.
Here are a couple of facts unknown to many since the US Pravda the outlet
for the Deep State to report only approved 'news' is hard at work to frame
Assad.
During HRC term as SOS she licensed Marc Turi the arms dealer to funnel
weapons into Syria via Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Marc Turi also stated that
she funneled Sarin gas from the Ghaddafi arsenal after his assassination to
the US sponsored rebels Al Nusra and others making up ISIS into Syria as a
means to overthrow, accuse and frame Assad as the culprit using Sarin gas
against his own people to stay in power.
HRC and Obama et al attempted to railroad Marc Turi after his services ended
as a means to silence him. The out-of-the-blue charges against him via the
Loretta Lynch DOJ accusing him of being an arms smuggler without license
nearly put him in prison ergo Turi threaten Hillary and Obama to expose
their treacherous actions in Benghazi that was used to set up the overthrow
of Assad in Syria. His threats of exposure of the arming of ISIS in Syria as
well as the Sarin gas provided to ISIS murdering Syrian civilians while
plasing the blame on Assad ended the prosecution and charges against him by
the DOJ who suddenly and without explanation dropped all charges against
him.
The saber rattling against Assad and Putin continues unabated as we see
here.
Nicki Haley – member of the #NeverTrump 'performs' her role as planned
namely to continue the anti-Assad and anti-Putin agenda. I'm sure traitor
McCain the Soros and CFR stooge is whispering into her ear.
Trump made a big mistake when appointing her into this position simply
because her agenda as part of Trump's republican enemies within while
placing trust in her she has not earned and is contrary to the DT agenda.
On a sidenote: In October 2016 the UK Parliament published their final
investigative report of Hillary and her actions in Libya/Benghazi accusing
her of war crimes. The US Pravda did not inform American voters about this
investigation.
Shortly after that the Syrian president Assad and Vladimir Putin submitted a
dossier to the ICC that described the Deep State and its agents Obama and
HRC about their war crimes in Syria detailing all the findings including the
use of Sarin gas provided to ISIS to be used on innocent civilians while
blaming it on Assad. The ICC studied this dossier and accepted said dossier
for a future trial against HRC and Obama et al among others having
participated in the attempt to overthrow his government and the slaughter of
over 250,000+ Syrians as a means to justify their coup.
Lastly – the recent report of the Russian government spokesperson with
reporters in regard to Tillerson's planned visit to Russia included this
statement: "If the disinformation, accusations and lies in the US via the
Deep State propaganda media continues accusing Russia having hacked the
election etc the Russian president may expose Obama about various issues and
actions that her begged Vladimir Putin to keep secret. All bets are off!"
Assad was not the one ordering the use of Sarin gas to attack his own
citizens but the Deep State and it's agents like Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
McCain, HRC and Obama et al using Ghaddafi's chemical weapons after his
assassination.
Anatoly Karlin
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT \n
What is different now is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that
perhaps has instilled unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they
can win a war with Russia.
It is not as huge as you might think. In fact, one of the reasons for a
hysteria is precisely a sense (and very rarely--a rational understanding) of
the fact of a complete failure in forecasting what Russia is both
economically and militarily. Considering an atrocious incompetence of
American so called "Russia expertdom" there is nothing surprising here.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same
way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another
conversation you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution
allowing the US to go into Afghanistan.
1. Russia of early 2000s and Russia of 2017 are two very different countries
in every single respect.
2. Some people in US military are beginning to understand that US can not
win conventional conflict with Russia in Russia's immediate vicinity, it
will be defeated and will sustain casualties which will make Vietnam look
like a week at the spa.
My view on things is informed by two key assumptions/observations:
(1) The
US can wipe the floor with Russia in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East.
(2) Russia can wipe the floor with NATO east and north of the Suwalki
gap.
If things really go south in Syria – as in, actual Russian forces coming
under sustained attack from the USAF – I would expect either:
(a) If they decide on a military response –> it will be either in Ukraine
(e.g. ranging from recognition of the LDNR to resurrection of the
Novorossiya project) or even the Baltics;
(b) If they decide on a negotiated surrender-in-all-but-name in Syria
with the US allowing Russia its forces intact in exchange for abandoning
Assad –> a domestic clampdown to contain the mass outrage that this
humiliation will doubtless elicit.
annamaria
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT \n
I think it is exactly the other way around. Russia has options, US doesn't,
apart from the fact that it lost all international subjectivity and is now
nothing more than Israel's "subsidiary". Russia is not desperate, US
establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with
Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war--it is her MO for
decades. US desperation for this "war" with Russia has very logical
explanations, granted that some of the factors in all this US insanity are,
indeed, irrational (and hysterical) and metaphysical in nature.
"Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so
desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will
always avoid war–it is her MO for decades. "
Agree. You are right. Russia
will always try to avoid the war. But the US needs desperately a war, both
to patch the enormous holes in economy (the $20 trillion debt and counting,
crumbling welfare system, loss of manufacture and such), and create new
sources of mineral riches from newly subdued countries. Instead of revamping
the internal system (a painful and highly strenuous process for a society),
the US wants to solve the problem by the old ways, externally. Since the US
is unable to reform (do you see any signs, any hope for the internal
reforms? – I do not), the deciders will go, most likely, for the jugular
against Russia. Only in this respect Russia is cornered.
The RF government has a task of politely (but painfully) reminding the
"deciders" that Russia will not capitulate to the "chosen," fed reserve, and
mega-war profiteers (all of them are most likely under a total surveillance
and "guidance" by the CIA). In the absence of the painful aspect of
reminding, the deciders are not able to come to their senses. Barring an
internal coup d'etat led by American patriots, the US is rolling towards
US-made global catastrophe.
Randal
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Hunsdon
Please bear in mind, O our host, that Gen. Dunford, chairman of the JCS,
said (in October?) that for the US to set up no fly zones in Syria would
mean that we are at war with Syria and Russia. The next day in a NBC radio
interview Lady MacBeth once more advocated for such no fly zones.
Unlike the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump administration
will actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly and Mattis. For the
last generation, the US has stalked more or less unopposed on the world
stage, throwing its weight around as it pleases. No one, we think, can
oppose us! Well, that's nice and all, but I haven't forgotten the Cold War
and the threat of nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Russia, and I'll bet
you a meal of shashlik, lepeshki and vodka that Mattis, Dunford and Kelly
haven't either.
Maybe my faith is naive, we'll have to wait and see.
Unlike the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump
administration will actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly
and Mattis.
Being military is certainly no guarantee against making misjudgements of
this kind.
"
Some of the retired military people whom McMaster inherited on the
NSC staff think that of the US intervenes against the Syrian government,
Russia will back away from, us. I do not agree with this.
"
100 Words
Tell me how this works , how it happens. Carl Bidt says same thing NYT says
before any investigation . So does Hailey at UN . Max Boot on MSNBC ,and GOP
Representative from Oklhaoma on FOX . Is there an universal subsonic dog
whistle that brings the howling out of the rabid mad poisonous vipers from
the hidden pit ? How do they start slithering out of the rock together?
I
guess I should include Bob Corker as well .
How does the other wailing from Israel that Iran is more dangerous than ISIS
synch with this dog whistle ?
Randal
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@JL
Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion
of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot
because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in
3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about
starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.
During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct
military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something
has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now
is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled
unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way
as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you
thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to
go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's
situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve
of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was
probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in
Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow
Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some
influence in the near abroad.
Look, I'm all for Russia's resistance to the empire, I'd just like it to
happen without WW3.
I noticed in another conversation you thought that Russia should have
vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to go into Afghanistan.
There was no UN resolution allowing the US attack on Afghanistan, which
was another deliberately lawless act by the US regime.
The Bush regime probably could have got one if it had felt it needed it,
given the almost universally supportive climate immediately after 9/11.
Instead it chose to rely on a shamelessly spurious and wilfully dishonest
mis-application of the supposed right of self defence after 9/11, knowing
that nobody important was going to question it. That produced a much more
useful precedent for the US regime than meekly complying with the law and
the US's treaty obligations would have.
Likewise, the Bush regime probably could have had Bin laden produced for
trial somewhere by the Taliban if it had wanted that, but the political and
brute power needs of the moment required the US regime to be seen to be
kicking some foreign butt aggressively and promptly.
Verymuchalive
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@Anatoly Karlin
My view on things is informed by two key assumptions/observations:
(1) The US can wipe the floor with Russia in Syria or anywhere in the Middle
East.
(2) Russia can wipe the floor with NATO east and north of the Suwalki gap.
If things really go south in Syria - as in, actual Russian forces coming
under sustained attack from the USAF - I would expect either:
(a) If they decide on a military response --> it will be either in Ukraine
(e.g. ranging from recognition of the LDNR to resurrection of the
Novorossiya project) or even the Baltics;
(b) If they decide on a negotiated surrender-in-all-but-name in Syria with
the US allowing Russia its forces intact in exchange for abandoning Assad
--> a domestic clampdown to contain the mass outrage that this humiliation
will doubtless elicit.
The safest way to defang America lies in any future economic collapse. Faced
with an imploding economy and a choice between minimal social welfare
measures or a grotesquely expanded military, the choice is obvious. I still
think it will happen later this decade, if there is any humanity left to
witness it.
The Neocons and the other warmongers seem to realise this, too, hence their
increasing recklessness in seeking ever more dangerous wars. As if one more
country to loot will somehow stave off the inevitable.
I have felt for some years now that other major powers ( Russia, China )
should have precipitated this collapse, since the longer they remain in
power – and both Houses are still overwhelmingly Neocon – the more dangerous
they become.
Philip Giraldi occasionally mentions a choke point near Dhahran where over
60% of Saudi Arabia's oil is processed. He regards it as the World's biggest
engineering weak spot. I suggest Mr Putin arranges a nasty accident there
ASAP, thereby preventing production for months and months. The panic alone
should be enough to trigger the collapse.
Anonymous
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT \n
300 Words
Does anyone know if parathion (E-605) and other similar organophosphate
pesticides are still being used in Syrian agriculture or are still present
in some form there? This class of chemicals are typically incredibly toxic
to people and they used to be widespread in Africa and the Middle East up
until very recently, and there were reports of tons of annual deaths from
accidental exposure in for example Syria.
The reason I'm asking is because
according to some of the geolocation efforts, the alleged bomb impacts
occured in and around an old agricultural facility with large buildings and
rows of silos, and several of the reported properties of the alleged
chemical match those of parathion and similar pesticides.
Parathion smells horrible, like steaming sewage slush, and it causes
acute respiratory difficulties, constricted pupils, horrifying convulsions
and ultimately death. Many symptoms are somewhat similar to those of
weaponized nerve agents such as Sarin and VX (they're also organophosphates)
but unlike the pesticides these lack any noticeable odor and they don't form
visible clouds.
Now, from what I can see Damascus decided to get rid of these things
after a parliamentary decision in 1999. This basically meant just burying it
in the ground or in some locked basement somewhere. Later on, the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) set off to help Syria
actually destroy these giant stashes and a program to this end was initiated
about ten years ago. They dug up close to a thousand tons of it from all
over the country, but it seems like the civil war got in the way before they
were finished, and who knows what the jihadist "authorities" are up to in
regards to that.
Just one possible theory among many, I suppose. I do think it's a tad far
fetched myself, but it was just something that popped into my head
immediately upon reading about this.
SmoothieX12
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@annamaria
"Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so
desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will
always avoid war–it is her MO for decades. "
Agree. You are right. Russia
will always try to avoid the war. But the US needs desperately a war, both
to patch the enormous holes in economy (the $20 trillion debt and counting,
crumbling welfare system, loss of manufacture and such), and create new
sources of mineral riches from newly subdued countries. Instead of revamping
the internal system (a painful and highly strenuous process for a society),
the US wants to solve the problem by the old ways, externally. Since the US
is unable to reform (do you see any signs, any hope for the internal
reforms? - I do not), the deciders will go, most likely, for the jugular
against Russia. Only in this respect Russia is cornered.
The RF government has a task of politely (but painfully) reminding the
"deciders" that Russia will not capitulate to the "chosen," fed reserve, and
mega-war profiteers (all of them are most likely under a total surveillance
and "guidance" by the CIA). In the absence of the painful aspect of
reminding, the deciders are not able to come to their senses. Barring an
internal coup d'etat led by American patriots, the US is rolling towards
US-made global catastrophe.
Instead of revamping the internal system (a painful and highly
strenuous process for a society), the US wants to solve the problem by
the old ways, externally. Since the US is unable to reform (do you see
any signs, any hope for the internal reforms? – I do not), the deciders
will go, most likely, for the jugular against Russia. Only in this
respect Russia is cornered.
Current US "elites" across the whole spectrum of state's activity–from
economic, to military, to intelligence, to diplomacy are simply not
competent to deal with global realities. In terms of statesmen–US does not
produce statesmen anymore, times of FDR, Ike or even Nixon are long gone. US
"elite" production are mostly Ivy League boys and girls who are only
conditioned for navigating system, which gets out only politicians who only
know how to get elected.
AP
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT \n
300 Words
@JL
Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion
of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot
because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in
3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about
starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.
During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct
military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something
has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now
is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled
unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way
as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you
thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to
go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's
situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve
of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was
probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in
Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow
Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some
influence in the near abroad.
Look, I'm all for Russia's resistance to the empire, I'd just like it to
happen without WW3.
My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to
an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in
kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more
unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and
annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.
Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe
its own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops
killed in Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its
troops were killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact,
I would put the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a
puppet government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case
of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's
never coming back from a nuclear war.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria
(really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia
occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts
of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear
war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would
be imposed.
AP
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT \n
100 Words
If we are going to make wild speculations, perhaps it's a Russian operation
designed to get America sucked into a Syrian quagmire as Russia exits, so
Russia can do more in its backyard while the USA is preoccupied in the
Middle East. Georgia happened while the USA was in Iraq.
I think there is
basically a zero chance of Assad having ordered this. It may be a US
false-flag operation, Which would be stupid and unlikely. Given how heavily
Russia is involved there, this could be probably uncovered rather easily
given the competence of Russian intelligence.
Most likely – some local commander acting for who knows what reason or
local resistence doing a false flag operation withot American orders.
Assad's forces are apparently not very centralized. Incompetence by Assad's
forces or desperation by resistence makes more sense than does a conspiracy.
SmoothieX12
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT \n
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the
extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would
be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both
civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that
it's even possible.
US "needs" any kind of military success after de facto lost wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. US military record of the last 70 years is rather
unimpressive–not a single war with first rate opponent, only extolled ad
nauseam "victory" over third rate Saddam forces. A lot of psychology comes
into this. Not only many US generals sleep and dream how to fight Russia,
they desperately crave it. In conventional war with Russia this will be US,
not Russia, who will initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are
numerous, including massive reputational military losses – from losing one
or two aircraft carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive
casualties which will lead to impossibility of attaining any political
objectives.
Russia is also completely capable of conventionally striking US proper.
By about 2021-2023 this capability will grow exponentially, including the
ability (which US currently doesn't have and most likely will not have) to
field missile and other technologies which completely zero-down US military
potential. Pentagon knows this.
utu
,
April 6, 2017 at 4:04 pm GMT \n
Just few years ago:
BBC News Caught Staging FAKE Chemical Attack In Syria
300 Words
Maybe all this is about putting Obama and Trump through exactly the same "do
as we say or else" deep state scenario? Remember that Obama knew that the
case for blaming Assad for Ghouta was at best not certain.
Seymour M. Hersh · Whose sarin? · LRB 19 December 2013
. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies
produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal
Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion –
citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with
al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of
manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should
have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to
justify a strike against Assad .
There was a lot of very loud rhetoric from Obama, but no direct attack in
response. One might almost say that Obama and Putin "cooperated" to allow
the situation to defuse. That was heavily criticized by the strongest
ZionCon fanatics in the US government and media.
Now we have an almost identical repeat of the very same scenario and
Trump must know that real intelligence suggests the same situation Obama
faced. Trump´s choices seem to be three-fold: (1) denounce the deep state
treason in the US government, (2) kowtow to the deep state and have the US
military directly attack Syria, or (3) do the same as Obama and let the
situation defuse with time (w/wo help from Putin).
I would guess Trump will choose option (3) just like Obama. The real
question is whether the ZionCon control of the US government includes both
the Pentagon and the CIA or whether the US military still resists the
country being ruled by a foreign sect. The media is clearly 100% ZionCon and
this restricts Trump's freedom to choose option (1).
utu
,
April 6, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT \n
The movement of US desert Camo military equipment was done in a way to
avoid detection by Russia. First to Germany to make it appear as a
buildup on Russia's border, then to Poland final to a port in Romania,
then reloaded at set sail to Beirut Lebanon where Damascus comes into
view.
Yeah, sure--you know, those stupid Russians who are still using spyglasses
and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they possibly
notice the movement of a brigade size units.
"Yeah, sure–you know, those stupid Russians who are still using
spyglasses and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they
possibly notice the movement of a brigade size units."
I do not know how is the mighty Russia military intelligence after the
major shakeups by Putin and Shoygu in 2010/11 doing? Where is your mighty
all knowing GRU? They did not not know that something is being cooked up and
the chemical weapon provocation was being prepared? Just few years in proper
places few days ago could avert it. But nothing happened. Did bombing in St.
Petersburg divert their attention?
At least in 2013 there was a leak that apparently stopped Obama from
going all the way:
Remember WHY Obama Didn't Act on the Red Line Violation? Leaked Document
Suggested Obama Greenlighted Chemical Weapon False Flag Attack
My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an
attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind,
and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more
unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and
annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.
Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe its
own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops killed in
Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its troops were
killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact, I would put
the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet
government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of
Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's
never coming back from a nuclear war.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really
doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia
occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts
of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear
war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would
be imposed.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria
(really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of
Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process)
and parts of Ukraine.
I could definitely foresee more involvement in Ukrainian affairs, but
Baltic aggression seems over the top to me. By invading any of the Baltic
countries, Russia will provoke the ire of European countries, especially
those within NATO, and a likely counterattack. A war against the US in Syria
and one against NATO in the Balts is way too much to envision. Things in
Ukraine would undoubtedly unwind too. Wars on three fronts for Russia would
be suicide. I think that what Karlin states here makes sense, and would
preempt this sort of a scenario from occuring:
I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so
long as the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't
have any formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation
in Syria proper will be justifiable – and well-advised, considering
massive American aeronaval dominance in the region
"Yeah, sure–you know, those stupid Russians who are still using
spyglasses and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they
possibly notice the movement of a brigade size units."
I do not know how is the mighty Russia military intelligence after the major
shakeups by Putin and Shoygu in 2010/11 doing? Where is your mighty all
knowing GRU? They did not not know that something is being cooked up and the
chemical weapon provocation was being prepared? Just few years in proper
places few days ago could avert it. But nothing happened. Did bombing in St.
Petersburg divert their attention?
At least in 2013 there was a leak that apparently stopped Obama from going
all the way:
Remember WHY Obama Didn't Act on the Red Line Violation? Leaked Document
Suggested Obama Greenlighted Chemical Weapon False Flag Attack
https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/remember-why-obama-didnt-act-on-the-red-line-violation-leaked-document-suggested-obama-greenlighted-chemical-weapon-false-flag-attack/
However you spin it does not look good. Russia is outplayed on every turn.
However you spin it does not look good.
My spin on it is for you to take some kind of calming medicine (try
Valerian Root) and start learning about real world outside. Stopping
projecting your (very wrong) perceptions of how complex
military-intelligence machines work onto something which needs more than
just reading a bunch of media outlets, may also help.
US most enjoyable hobby always was to beat up small South American
countries.
Jooz only redirected this valuable US passion to Middle East.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Randal
,
April 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm GMT \n
My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an
attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind,
and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more
unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and
annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.
Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe its
own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops killed in
Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its troops were
killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact, I would put
the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet
government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of
Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's
never coming back from a nuclear war.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really
doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia
occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts
of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear
war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would
be imposed.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the
extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would
be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both
civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that
it's even possible ..In fact, I would put the odds of a nuclear response
to American troops installing a puppet government and occupying Moscow at
below 50%. Because as in the case of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation,
Russia can come back from that. It's never coming back from a nuclear
war.
That's not how anybody really expects a superpower confrontation to lead
to nuclear war, though.
Most escalation scenarios since mutually assured destruction became
generally accepted involve a repeated series of escalations, each assuming
the other side will step back from the brink in response, or a loss of
command and control giving rise to uncontrolled or mistaken releases, until
at some point one side is faced, or thinks it is faced, with a stark "use it
or lose it" choice with only a few minutes to decide.
It's not that likely that even open war would lead to an uncontrolled
nuclear exchange. but how much risk are you prepared to accept when the
consequences are that serious?
The real concern today, though, is that there might be American
politicians and military men who actually believe that their first strike
counterforce capabilities combined with missile defences to mop up surviving
attacks actually could limit damage to the continental US to acceptable
levels.
Anatoly Karlin
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT \n
200 Words
NEW!
@AP
If we are going to make wild speculations, perhaps it's a Russian operation
designed to get America sucked into a Syrian quagmire as Russia exits, so
Russia can do more in its backyard while the USA is preoccupied in the
Middle East. Georgia happened while the USA was in Iraq.
I think there is
basically a zero chance of Assad having ordered this. It may be a US
false-flag operation, Which would be stupid and unlikely. Given how heavily
Russia is involved there, this could be probably uncovered rather easily
given the competence of Russian intelligence.
Most likely - some local commander acting for who knows what reason or
local resistence doing a false flag operation withot American orders.
Assad's forces are apparently not very centralized. Incompetence by Assad's
forces or desperation by resistence makes more sense than does a conspiracy.
Incompetence by Assad's forces or desperation by resistence makes more
sense than does a conspiracy.
>implying Arabs are competent enough to keep strict tabs on all their
chemical warfare agents
> implying they can tell the difference between a regular bomb and a gas
bomb when they load them up in their planes
> implying Arabs haven't used nerve agents as recently as 1988 in warfare
> implying there is a strategic ammo dump full of sarin that they bombed
despite literally no evidence pointing to any such thing
> implying even if they did bomb this imaginary depot full of sarin
agents that the agents don't dissipate quickly enough due to sarin's high
evaporation rate which is sped up intensely by the dry Syrian desert
It certainly could have also been a rogue element within the Syrian
military. It's not exactly a secret there are too many Islamist sympathizers
within it, which partly explains why it has such low effectiveness.
I agree that one or the other of these is probably likelier than a
specifically American inspired false flag, which in turn is likelier than
Assad having ordered it directly.
Anonymous
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT \n
200 Words
The purpose of this False Flag chemical attack by the CIA trained terrorists
who are called 'rebel' by the illiterate zionist salesman, is to create No
Fly Zone, modified a 'save zone' by the illiterate 'president' to partition
Syria and Iraq to erect kurdistan. Kurds are trained CIA terrorists spying
for Israel and US. The axis of evil US – Israel- Britain CANNOT topple
Assad, so the illiterate 'president' is trying the false flag operation to
establish NFZ, the US/Hillary project with the help of the YOUNG zionist
Kushner in the business of illegal settlements.
The illiterate zionist
salesman in the business of escort and hotel with a help of his escort at
the UN is trying to fool the ignorant American people AGAIN to commit more
crimes against humanity to help his son in law. Shame on America that goes
sooooooooooo low to implement Zionist policy.
The people of the region NEVER allow a second Israel in Syria or Iraq.
YOU, the criminal mass murderers must get lost from Syria and the region
NOW.
Down with China and Russia if they sell another country to mass
murderers, like Libya, for two bones called concessions. Shame on China if
betrays humanity AGAIN.
bjondo
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT \n
300 Words
@reiner Tor
To be honest, I can't even imagine how this apparent complete U-turn could
happen without him being blackmailed.
"without him being blackmailed" – One resorts to blackmail with people who
have integrity and stand for some higher principles. Trump is an
opportunist. He will do whatever. He is not the man of your own projections
that you casted on him. This commenter I think got him right
Trump has balls but he's no political philosopher. He's not coherent
on anything.
"I love Wikileaks! I'm being surveilled!/Edward Snowden is a traitor!"
"Iraq was a mistake. Libya was a mistake. America First!/We're gonna
get rid of Isis! Assad's gas attack changes things."
"Drain the swamp!/ Get behind the establishment's healthcare bill!"
"Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it/Mitt Romney lost because
his self deportation comment was mean and it lost him the Latino vote"
The guy watches Fox and Friends and Judge Jeanine-two of the most mind
numbingly stupid shows on cable news and seems to genuinely enjoy them.
The guy has a few good instincts but he doesn't have a coherent worldview
and you can bet the people whispering in his ear who can actually get
stuff done in Washington do. Problem is, they tend to be Bill Kristol.
Rand "hey let's actually talk about this before we commit ourselves to
more wars" Paul is a lonely "wacko bird." Trump is beyond ideology. He
wants results. He want accomplishments. He wants his ego flattered. And
there are plenty of rats ready to exploit that situation and play Iago to
his Othello.
Who has access to his ear now counts. It ain't Bannon anymore who helped
to save his campaign by doubling down on the original Trump message that
Trump was ready to dilute or even discard. It will be Ivanka, Kushner and
many Iagos. Art at #114 above put it really well in terms of Steve the
Baptist metaphor. W/o Bannon it's over.
utu
,
April 6, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT \n
"I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria
(really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of
Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process)
and parts of Ukraine. "
I could definitely foresee more involvement in Ukrainian affairs, but
Baltic aggression seems over the top to me. By invading any of the Baltic
countries, Russia will provoke the ire of European countries, especially
those within NATO, and a likely counterattack.
In my comment I assumed not some Russians killed as collateral damage by the
USA assaulting Assad, but a US direct attack on and destruction of Russian
military forces in Syria such as the naval base at Tartus. I think the odds
of this happening are basically zero, but if the USA did this I suspect
Russia would retaliate by taking out the nearest and most convenient
American bases, which would be in the Baltics (Russia couldn't really
retaliate in the Middle East). This would save face at home, demonstrate to
the world that Russia does retaliate and that attacks on Russia have
consequences, and perhaps end NATO, because the Western powers, as in 1939,
would probably not want to really fight for the sake of some eastern
European countries.
"I suspect Russia would retaliate by taking out the nearest and most
convenient American bases, which would be in the Baltics (Russia couldn't
really retaliate in the Middle East). "
Russia has no conventional means of retaliating in the Middle East. All
Russian forces in Middle East can be swarmed and overwhelmed by USA, Turkey
and Israel within few hours. Russia will not go nuclear for the sake of
Syria. In the end it is all about saving face. Funny, isn't it? There is
nothing tangible there. Saving face for Russian people sake only because
beyond Russia nobody really cares about Russia's face which in the West they
think is beyond salvaging anyway. The end of it will be a coup d'etat in
Russia by those who think that Russia's face was not saved enough or by
those who think that saving Russia's face may lead to Russia's destruction.
It will be the latter who pretend to be the former for the people's sake.
SmoothieX12
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT \n
500 Words
@AP
I agree with most of what you say, and can't dispute your military
assessment because it is beyond my expertise. But -
In conventional war with Russia this will be US, not Russia, who will
initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are numerous, including
massive reputational military losses–from losing one or two aircraft
carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive casualties which
will lead to impossibility of attaining any political objectives.
I find the idea of America's military/political leaders choosing to commit
national suicide under such a scenario (Russia destroying America's military
capability and ability to project power outside the USA through conventional
means) to be extremely unlikely. Leader may be foolish or short-sighted, but
I really doubt they have a Nazi-like or Islamic-like mentality of preferring
total national destruction if they don't have their way. I doubt even the
fanatic neocons would feel this way.
I find the idea of America's military/political leaders choosing to
commit national suicide under such a scenario (Russia destroying
America's military capability and ability to project power outside the
USA through conventional means) to be extremely unlikely.
I don't. Without going deep into, now firmly established,
dysfunctionality of the US State, which is horrendously dangerous in itself,
the war, and I am not being original here, has the mind of its own once it
starts. The war with Russia, if it happens either in Syria or, let alone, in
and around Ukraine, will have a very different military and political logic.
1. Casualties sustained will be massive in a very short period of time.
2. US will have a major political crisis at home.
3. Reputational losses will be huge.
4. Geopolitical dynamics will change drastically and in a very short time
5. This point is for US further internal US contingencies and here one can
only imagine what it may be and what political forces may emerge.
Military-intelligence coup? Easily.
6.
So,
Leader may be foolish or short-sighted, but I really doubt they have a
Nazi-like or Islamic-like mentality of preferring total national
destruction if they don't have their way.
But this is a defining feature of, at least, most neocon cabal. But let's
forget about Korea, where MacArthur was forced by Truman out of his position
because he wanted to use nukes, same goes for Vietnam, where nuking it was
considered. US is a no stranger to this kind of military thinking. What
happens if Russia destroys a single Carrier Battle Group, and probability of
this is not a zero at all? Do you know what the loss of even single carrier
means for US as a whole, forget US Navy. Do not listen to me, read what
Admiral Elmo Zumwalt thought about it during and after his tenure as CNO. We
can only imagine what pressures will arise. While it is true that neocons
are cowards, it is also true that we really do not know what is their
threshold of rationality. You have to understand, for decades now US
political and military "elite" was formed by this ad nauseam mantra of
American exceptionalism in everything. Are you ready to predict the results
of this "parting syndrome"? I am not. I can only discuss contingencies and
one of them, and I guarantee you–it is being considered in Russia, is
precisely of US "top" going completely rogue and insane, not that it is not
happening as I type this. This contingency can not and must not be excluded
from serious elaborations.
P.S. Lowlife Albright's desire to sacrifice 500,000 Iraqi children for
"democracy" was not an accidental misspeak–this is how many in D.C. think
and live. In the end, if not for courageous British General Sir. Jackson,
Wesley Clark would start killing Russian paratroopers at Slatina airfield.
He issued the orders. Since then things only got worse.
El Dato
,
April 6, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@anon
Trump got burned on the Yemen raid.
Why is the military going along with
this one? The last one didn't happen because no one wanted to sign off on
it. That is, Obama drew the line (stupidly). But then decided to make
Congress vote for it. Everyone wanted someone else to be the designated
'leader'.
Syria is no less a loser today. Does Congress want to vote for this? The
only thing that is utterly predictable about Trump is he doesn't want to
lose. But even more so, he doesn't want to be blamed.
He was quite convincing today as the sucker.
But really?
The military and public mostly seem OK with bombing. So maybe we bomb
some stuff. It's disgusting but its just killing military on one side or
another along with a lot of collateral damage, dead women and children, etc.
But no boots on the ground.
I'd like to think that he won't do it. Like how could he be so stupid?
But it hasn't stopped anyone sine the 2000 election.
So maybe we bomb some stuff.
That's going to be quite interesting.
- Nusra Front will rebound.
- ISIS will be back (remember them?)
- USA will lose a few planes to S-300 anti-air.
- There will be dead Russians. This won't go down well.
- There will be dead Iranian cleaner teams, and thus angry Iranians.
Hardcore Mullahs will be happy (sounds like feature because a War on Iran is
exactly what the satanic union of Saudi-Arabia and you-know-who wants.)
- Turkey will flow into the "bombed stuff" area to attack Kurds.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even
more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both
civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that
it's even possible.
US "needs" any kind of military success after de facto lost wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. US military record of the last 70 years is rather
unimpressive--not a single war with first rate opponent, only extolled ad
nauseam "victory" over third rate Saddam forces. A lot of psychology comes
into this. Not only many US generals sleep and dream how to fight Russia,
they desperately crave it. In conventional war with Russia this will be US,
not Russia, who will initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are
numerous, including massive reputational military losses--from losing one or
two aircraft carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive
casualties which will lead to impossibility of attaining any political
objectives. Russia is also completely capable of conventionally striking US
proper. By about 2021-2023 this capability will grow exponentially,
including the ability (which US currently doesn't have and most likely will
not have) to field missile and other technologies which completely zero-down
US military potential. Pentagon knows this.
US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive
Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes
like ripping those Afghans a new one for example.
Art
,
April 6, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
100 Words
Just cannot believe that Assad is that stupid as to do a gas attack at this
time. It is beyond comprehension, after staying in power for five years of
vicious civil war, and about ready to declare victory, he would never
knowingly do this.
This was either a tragic unintended error or a false
flag by another party – most likely Israel.
Whatever, the globalist Jews are going to use this tragedy to achieve
their long-held goal of breaking up Syria.
200 Words
@iffen
US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive
Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes
like ripping those Afghans a new one for example.
"There is a literature and a common perception that the Soviets were
defeated and driven from Afghanistan. This is not true. When the Soviets
left Afghanistan in 1989, they did so in a coordinated, deliberate,
professional manner, leaving behind a functioning government, an improved
military and an advisory and economic effort insuring the continued
viability of the government. The withdrawal was based on a coordinated
diplomatic, economic and military plan permitting Soviet forces to withdraw
in good order and the Afghan government to survive. The Democratic Republic
of Afghanistan (DRA)managed to hold on despite the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991. Only then, with the loss of Soviet support and the increased
efforts by the Mujahideen (holy warriors) and Pakistan, did the DRA slide
toward defeat in April 1992. The Soviet effort to withdraw in good order was
well executed and can serve as a model for other disengagements from similar
nations."
100 Words
@iffen
US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive
Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes
like ripping those Afghans a new one for example.
Compared to Vietnam, the Soviet record in Afghanistan wasn't really that bad
(and at least the Soviets realized early on that they needed to get out and
left behind a friendly regime that lasted some time, and might have lasted
longer if not for the dissolution of the Soviet Union – what has NATO
achieved so far in Afghanistan, after 15 years?).
And I'd actually go farther than Smoothie, US triumphalism is way overdone
even in regard to the 2nd world war, at least concerning the European
theatre.
jconsley
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Seraphim
It is known that the apparition of Haley's Comet presage wars. Do we have
it? No, but we have Nikki Haley.
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Feb. 16, 2017:
""I just put out to the members of the Seucrity Council to help me
understand: When we have so much going on in the world, why is it that every
single month we're going to sit down and have a hearing where all they do is
obsess over Israel?...
The Security Council is supposed to discuss how to maintain international
peace and security. But at our meeting on the Middle East, the discussion
was not about Hizballah's illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon. It was not
about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about
how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable
for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the
meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle
East. I am new around here, but I understand that's how the Council has
operated, month after month, for decades.
I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore.
I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for
Israel. I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to
the UN's anti-Israel bias. We will never repeat the terrible mistake of
Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn
Israel. Instead, we will push for action on the real threats we face in the
Middle East...
It is the UN's anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change. The United
States will not hesitate to speak out against these biases in defense of our
friend and ally, Israel".
What are the 'real threats'? Assad, Russia, Iran, Sarin gas. Understood?
Poor Nikki - what about Resolution 242? Is it now 69 U.N. Resolutions that
Israel has ignored along with all international law? Does the United States
recognize international law Nikki?
Thus far, your comments and
representation display you total lack of knowledge. At least consider the
pros and cons of situations before forming an opinion. It seems you are
regurgitating whatever lies you are told.
Perhaps Trump selected you because you only watch TV and never read
books, magazines, etc. You no doubt make Trump feel comfortable with your TV
knowledge. It may help to read some State Department cables and emails to
learn about United States' policies. Try not to be discouraged by the fact
that most policies are hypocritical where Israel is involved.
John Gruskos
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT \n
@Tulip
Why would Assad do it, assuming he is winning the civil war?
First, Assad
requires political backers to stay in power, and if his backers dessert, he
will fall.
Second, during the civil war, his political backers have no choice but to
back Assad, or otherwise their faction could fall from power.
Third, after the civil war, his political backers could very well
consider new leadership.
Fourth, by using poison gas, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions,
Assad and his backers are now international war criminals.
Fifth, if his backers move against Assad, they could all end up in front
of the Hague.
Sixth, its a nice FU to Donald Trump and America, as Assad doesn't need
their support.
Seventh, it either brings the Donald into an unwinnable quagmire,
weakening America, or Donald looks more like Ronald (McDonald).
If it looks like he is going to win the war, and Russia and Iran have his
back (in terms of money and arms), gassing these people helps cement the
support of his backers, at the expense of pissing off some nations he
neither needs nor likes.
This theory doesn't hold up. Assad and his backers
already
have blood
on their hands. He doesn't need a new atrocity to cement their loyalty.
"... you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected. ..."
"... now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much. ..."
"... torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil ..."
This turn of events is the biggest challenge ever to my support of Trump. If he really goes
the way he is indicating, he will lose the support of people like me -- and there may be millions
like me. We have no alternative candidate, but we will never again be led down this road.
If Trump turns, that is the end of everything.
" we will never again be led down this road." You will, you will because you like most losers
are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and
it worked perfectly for him. He got elected.
But now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of
your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much.
The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing
their oil. Did you vote for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it:
In
the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very
good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the "fake news" (which in "Trumpese" means CNN
& Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly
to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors
and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who
now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how
long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except
those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing
speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the "DC swamp".
Furthermore,
by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other
information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time
around and that is how he might win again.
The
Neocons and the US 'Deep State' have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they
appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides
to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have
a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye.
If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what
could happen next.
I
strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama's betrayal of all his campaign promises
only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried
to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the 'deep state' was not going to let him take action or threaten
him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support
of "their guy" against the "bastards in DC". Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress
suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the
streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don't exactly imagine the cops
going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people
will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters
the latter will easily defeat the former. The "basket of deplorables" are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they
have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.
There
are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the
people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American
people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy
of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really
have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it
this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the
creation of USNORTHCOM and the
statutory exceptions
from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions,
assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would
remind any "DC swamp" members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against
the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that.
Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own
people?
Donald
Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the
USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in "enemy territory"
controlled by the "deplorables", something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.
This
week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will
get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly
paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump
– he won't have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying
to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank
God for small favors
I
can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently
trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state,
but I am not holding my breath.
Tonight
I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump
and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war.
I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard.
Only time will tell.
Mike Moore's flabby mug always looks indecently exposed, like middle-aged
female genitalia. The fat slob could lead the old hags' march without the pink
pussyhat. Just his own visage would suffice. He is actually similar to George
Soros: the same obscene pussyface. For me, his appearance would doom him: like
Oscar Wilde, I believe that ugly creatures are immoral as well. It's enough to
look at Madeleine Albright, another pussyface, for a proof. But if you need
more, his
Stupid White Men
has been the most execrable book produced
in the US in this century: there he claimed that were 9/11 passengers black,
the hijack would never have succeeded. Now the Pussyface bared the hidden plans
of Putin and
called for enthroninge Clinton because Trump is a Russian spy
. Years ago he
spoke against the Iraq War; now he calls for the nuclear Armageddon. With such
enemies, we should not give up on Trump.
Trump is down, cry the fans and haters alike. He's been defeated, broken,
never to rise again. He is a lame duck soon to be impeached. He will crawl back
to his golden lair leaving the White House to his betters, or even better, he
will run to his pal Vlad Putin.
No, my friends and readers, Trump is fighting, not running, but things take
time. It is not easy to change the paradigm, and the odds were heavily slanted
against Trump from step one. Still, he got this far, and he will go on.
Stubborn guy, and he perseveres. The corrupt judges chain his hands; the CIA
and NSA reveal his moves to the
NYT, CNN, NBC
; but he stands up, ready
to carry the fight to his – and American people's – enemy, the hydra of so many
triple-letter heads.
There are sprinters who want to see victory right away, and they despair at
the first setback. A power-intoxicated judge opens America's gates for the ISIS
advance troops, voiding a very moderate and sensible executive order, and they
wring their hands. Terrible, but what could Trump do? To do nothing because his
order would be overturned? He had to try, so the people will see and judge the
judges. Line the judges up against the (Mexican border) wall at sunrise? He
can't do it yet, though it would make sense.
Flynn had to leave, and they exclaim:
all is lost
. It would be bad indeed, if Trump were to take it lying down,
but he did not. At a very public and well-covered press-conference with Prime
Minister Netanyahu, Trump
said
: "Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been
treated very, very unfairly by the media - as I call it, the fake media. It's
very, very unfair what's happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and
the documents and papers that were illegally - I stress that - illegally
leaked. Very, very unfair." These are fighting words, of a man who lost a
battle, or a skirmish, but he still fights the war.
Perhaps it would be better to keep Flynn, but politics is an art of
possible. Trump's words of support for the dismissed general were already out
of line.
Trump had met with Netanyahu, and the faint-of-heart bewailed the US
President's surrender to the nefarious lobby. The other way round. The ADL, the
Jewish assault crew,
attacked him
for refusing to mouth their favourite word "antisemitism",
Haaretz
declared
"Yes, Trump is an antisemite", the
NY Times
editorialised
why he did not condemn the a-s word as demanded; Rabbis
called
his remarks "terrifying" and "anti-Zionist" for Trump refused to
tromp the well-trodden impasse called "two-states solution". By the way,
Palestinians do support one-state-solution mentioned by Trump and do not
believe in the mythic two-states-solution, the Middle-Eastern equivalent of
squaring the circle. Trump deftly applied his weapon of choice, Bibi
Netanyahu's support; with this weapon a-blazing, Trump was able to beat off the
bouts of a-s hunters without doing what they wanted.
It would be better to forget about Jews altogether, but it can't be done
while they own all the fake-news media and the hearts of ordinary Americans.
Refusing to condemn a-s is as far as an American politician can walk without
falling of the earth's disc altogether.
After this explaining-away, let us admit that the first month of Trump's
first term was an uphill one. We hoped the defeated forces would be reasonable
and allow the new president to implement his agenda, but they carried on their
arrière-garde battle. His task is huge: Trump endeavours to bury globalising
capitalism before it buries European and American workers. Without Trump,
America and Europe would be invaded by millions made homeless by R2P wars.
Without Trump, the American and European workers would work in hamburger
joints, while the financiers would bloat off their blood and sweat. Such a
U-turn couldn't pass unopposed.
Look back at people who achieved radical changes of such magnitude. I will
not mention names so you won't be scared. None of them had a specially nice
personality, but they had charisma, iron will, good memory, vision and
perseverance; they were master tacticians, i.e. they felt when it was the right
time to retreat and when to advance. Perhaps Trump has these qualities. But
besides, they usually had a loyal and supportive party, or at least an army or
secret services at their disposal. Trump has none.
These additional tools are necessary to overcome the undemocratic and
unelected elements of the government. In the US, the judiciary and media, two
"powers" out of four, are profoundly un- or even anti-democratic. The media is
owned by the media lords, usually rich Jews, and it promotes their agenda.
Judges are instinctively anti-democratic; they despise democracy and popular
opinion.
ORDER IT NOW
The judiciary is also heavily Judaised: three out of nine (or four out of
nine) Supreme Court judges are Jewish. President Obama had tried to install an
additional Jewish judge, and pro-Jewish elements will fight to prevent a
non-Jew
"stealing"
his place. There are so many Jewish lawyers and Jewish teachers
of law that this puts its imprimatur upon the whole profession. No radical
change can be entertained and implemented unless these powers are limited.
Trump has no loyal party, no reliable and loyal secret services. The US
intel is against him, spies on him and delivers the goods to his political
enemies. The Republican Party is suspicious of Trump. There are too many
Republicans sharpening knives for his back, beginning with the old
traitor, John McCain
. Republican Senators and Representatives owe a huge
debt to (a large extent Jewish) donors; they need the support of the media in
order to get re-elected.
Trump should establish control over his party, by placing his loyalists and
weeding out his adversaries in the party apparatus, in the Senate and Congress.
I'd advise him to break, humiliate and unseat a prominent hostile Republican
Senator, even if the seat would go to a Democrat. It is not an impossible task.
This would instill some fear in the meek hearts.
Bringing the secret services under control is relatively easy: begin a
witch-hunt after the traitors who leaked the contents of classified phone
conversations to the media. This is high treason; a lot of people of dubious
loyalty can be dismissed just in case of suspicion. A one-way ticket to
Guantanamo will help to focus minds of potential traitors. They should be
treated as harshly as poor Bradley Manning was. And anyway, the secret services
are overblown; the US can't support one million spies. Eighty per cent should
go. They should enter the labour market and be useful. The remainder will be
loyal.
The media can be subjugated by various means. Usually media holdings are
not highly profitable and are susceptible to hostile takeovers; some holdings
can be broken using anti-trust legislation. Hostile media lords can be brought
to heel by checking their tax returns. In case of the
NY Times
, their
system of multi-tier shares is plainly unjust and can be attacked by
shareholders. The best and most radical measure would separate advertising and
content by banning political content in ad-carrying publications, as I argued
elsewhere
, but it would need the approval of Congress.
The judges are human; hostile judges who think they are above the president
and congress can be subjected to thorough inspection with some prejudice. Life
tenure should be abolished in the courts and in the universities.
So the task of President Trump is formidable but not impossible. Cut the
security services down to size of, say, British or French services (it is also
a lot). Remember that after WWI, the US had no secret services at all, and
prospered. Terrorise a media lord and a Republican senator. Discover the
corruption of District judges. Open a can of worms in the Clinton Foundation.
Try some neocons for lying to the Congress. Mend bridges with Bernie Sanders.
Call your supporters to enlist in the Republican party and achieve your
dominance in primaries. And yes, it will take time.
Now you understand why the pessimistic assessments of our colleagues Paul
Craig Roberts and The Saker are at least premature. In the face of the ancient
regime's hostility, Trump will need at least six months merely to settle
properly in the White House. Just for comparison: Putin had spent five years
consolidating his power, and another five years solidifying it, though he had
full support of Russian security services and a most authoritarian constitution
written by the Americans for their stooge Mr Yeltsin.
President Putin remembers that it takes time. For this reason, he is not
unduly upset by President Trump's delay with normalising US-Russia relations.
The fake news of Russian disenchantment with Trump are exactly that, fake news.
Russians believe in positive developments for US-Russia relations, and they do
not hold their breath.
But why I do believe that Trump will win, at the end? The US is not an
island; it is a part of the West, and the West is going through a paradigm
change. Cuntfaces lost, Deplorables won, and not as a fluke. Remember, Trump
was not the first victory; the Brexit preceded him. Between the Brexit vote and
the Trump election, the British government hesitated and postponed acting upon.
The Brits weren't sure whether that vote was a sign of change, or a fluke.
After Trump's victory, the Brits marched on.
The British judges – every bit as evil as the American ones – tried to stop
Brexit by insisting that the case be sent to Parliament. They believed that the
Parliament would throw the case out, and leave England in the EU, as their
media demanded. But they were mistaken. Though the British public voted for
Brexit 52:48, the British parliamentarians approved it 83:17. The Deplorables
won hands down.
Now let us cross the English Channel. The French Establishment preferred
François Fillon (centre-right, a moderate Republican, in American terms) to
inherit the chair of pussyfaced President Hollande. His victory appeared
assured. But as he readied himself for the move to the Palais de l'Élysée, an
unpleasant fact has been revealed. This modest member of parliament
misappropriated
(stole, in plain English) a cool million dollars of French
taxpayers' best by claiming his wife worked as his parliamentary assistant.
Now nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole, and the chances of the
Queen of Deplorables, Marine Le Pen winning the May elections in the first
round became highly plausible. She will be opposed by a soft socialist Emmanuel
Macron, and he is not very impressive. His rhetoric of calling her "bitter" and
"enemy of liberte-egalite-fraternite" as she is not keen on Arab immigration,
probably will fall on deaf ears. People are bitter, and they aren't sure that
more Arabs means more equality. So Marine may win, and France will become an
ally of Trump's America.
ORDER IT NOW
Fillon accused "shadowy" forces of seeking to crush him, and probably he is
right. This revelation took air out of his sails, and it came in the right
moment, just like in the case of DNC emails. In both cases, the crime, or at
least dishonest dealing of the culprit was real, and he (or she) deserved
defeat. In both cases, only a real powerful and "shadowy" force could make it
stick. This is not Russia: Russia is not in this league yet. It is a "shadowy"
Western force standing for nationalist capitalism, against globalist liberal
"invade-invite" force. This force helped Trump reach White House, this force
caused Brexit, this force removed Fillon from Le Pen's way. It is probable Frau
Merkel will lose the forthcoming elections, ruining Obama's preposterous plan
to install Germany as the liberal globalised world's cornerstone.
The Masters of Discourse are being defeated in all the West. Temporary
setbacks of Donald Trump can't change this tendency. Nationalist productive
capitalism is set to inherit from the financiers, the media lords, the minority
promoters, the transgender toilets and women studies. The battle is not over
yet, but meanwhile it seems the Deplorables are winning, and Pussyfaces are
losing.
We do not know who stands for the Deplorables. When Brexit won, the Masters
of Discourse said the pensioners, lumpens, chavs did it. But then, the
Parliament approved it. Mme Clinton despised the deplorables, but now Trump
sits in the White House. With France and Germany in the queue, a new force is
coming to the fore. It is supported by native majorities. Who leads it from
behind? Industrialists, people of spirit, or just the Spirit of Time, the
Zeitgeist? Whatever it is, this force will help Trump, if he will persist.
"... A growing impasse between the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank, Greece's two main lenders, is threatening to push Greece into default, and pull out of the euro. Meanwhile, the Greece government told its lenders, that we now call "Troika" today, that it will not agree to any more austerity measures. Joining us today, to take a closer look at the Greek situation is Michael Hudson. Michael is a distinguished Professor of Economics, at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He's the author of many books, and the latest among them is, J is for Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception ..."
"... What do you do in a case where you make a loan to a country, and the entire staff says that there is no way this country can repay the loan? That is what the IMF staff said in 2015. It made the loan anyway – not to Greece, but to pay French banks, German banks and a few other bondholders – not a penny actually went to Greece. The junk economics they used claimed to have a program to make sure the IMF would help manage the Greek economy to enable it to repay. Unfortunately, their secret ingredient was austerity. ..."
"... Sharmini, for the last 50 years, every austerity program that the IMF has made has shrunk the victim economy. No austerity program has ever helped an economy grow. No budget surplus has ever helped an economy grow, because a budget surplus sucks money out of the economy. As for the conditionalities, the so-called reforms, they are an Orwellian term for anti-reform, for cutting back pensions and rolling back the progress that the labor movement has made in the last half century. So, the lenders knew very well that Greece would not grow, and that it would shrink. ..."
"... If you lend money to a country that your statistics show cannot pay the debt, is there really a moral obligation to pay the debt? ..."
SHARMINI PERIES: The latest economic indicator showed that the Greek economy shrank by 0.4% in the last three months of 2016.
This poses a real problem for Greece, because its lenders are expecting it to grow by 3.5% annually, to enable it to pay back on
its bailout loan. Greece is scheduled to make a 10.5 billion euro payment on its debt next summer, but is expected to be unable to
make that payment, without another installment from its $86 billion bailout.
A growing impasse between the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank, Greece's two main lenders, is threatening
to push Greece into default, and pull out of the euro. Meanwhile, the Greece government told its lenders, that we now call "Troika"
today, that it will not agree to any more austerity measures. Joining us today, to take a closer look at the Greek situation is Michael
Hudson. Michael is a distinguished Professor of Economics, at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He's the author of many books,
and the latest among them is, J
is for Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception .
Thank you so much for joining us today, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's good to be here. But I take issue with one thing that you said. You said the lenders expect Greece
to grow. That is not so. There is no way in which the lenders expected Greece to grow. In fact, the IMF was the main lender. It said
that Greece cannot grow, under the circumstances that it has now.
What do you do in a case where you make a loan to a country, and the entire staff says that there is no way this country can
repay the loan? That is what the IMF staff said in 2015. It made the loan anyway – not to Greece, but to pay French banks, German
banks and a few other bondholders – not a penny actually went to Greece. The junk economics they used claimed to have a program to
make sure the IMF would help manage the Greek economy to enable it to repay. Unfortunately, their secret ingredient was austerity.
Sharmini, for the last 50 years, every austerity program that the IMF has made has shrunk the victim economy. No
austerity program has ever helped
an economy grow. No budget surplus has ever helped an economy grow, because a budget surplus sucks money out of the economy. As for
the conditionalities, the so-called reforms, they are an Orwellian term for anti-reform, for cutting back pensions and rolling back
the progress that the labor movement has made in the last half century. So, the lenders knew very well that Greece would not grow,
and that it would shrink.
So, the question is, why does this junk economics continue, decade after decade? The reason is that the loans are made to Greece
precisely because Greece couldn't pay. When a country can't pay, the rules at the IMF and EU and the German bankers behind
it say, don't worry, we will simply insist that you sell off your public domain. Sell off your land, your transportation, your ports,
your electric utilities. This is by now a program that has gone on and on, decade after decade.
Now, surprisingly enough, America's ambassador to the EU, Ted Malloch, has gone on Bloomberg and also on Greek TV telling the
Greeks to leave the euro and go it alone. You have Trump's nominee for the ambassador to the EU saying that the EU zone is dead zone.
It's going to shrink. If Greece continues to repay the loan, if it does not withdraw from the euro, then it is going to be in a permanent
depression, as far as the eye can see.
Greece is suffering the result of these bad loans. It is already in a longer depression today, a deeper depression, than it was
in the 1930s.
SHARMINI PERIES: Yeah, that's an important at the very beginning of your answer here, you were making this very important point,
is that although the lenders – this is the Eurozone lenders – had set a target of 3.5% surplus as a condition on Greece in order
to make that first bailout loan. The IMF is saying, well, that's not quite doable, 1.5% should be the target.
But you're saying, neither of these are real, or is achievable, or desired, for that matter, because they actually want Greece
to fail. Why are you saying that?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Because when Greece fails, that's a success for the foreign investors that want to buy the Greek railroads. They
want to take over the ports. They want to take over the land. They want the tourist sites. But most of all, they want to set an example
of Greece, to show that France, the Netherlands or other countries that may think of withdrawing from the euro – withdraw and decide
they would rather grow than be impoverished – that the IMF and EU will do to them just what they're doing to Greece.
So they're making an example of Greece. They're going to show that finance rules, and in fact that is why both Trump and Ted
Malloch have come up in support of the separatist movement in France. They're supporting Marine Le Pen, just as Putin is supporting
Marine Le Pen. There's a perception throughout the world that finance really is a mode of warfare.
If they can convince countries somehow to adopt junk economics and pursue policies that will destroy themselves, then they'll
be easy pickings for foreign investors, and for the globalists to take over other economies. So, it's a form of war.
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Michael, you were saying that the newly appointed ambassador, Ted Malloch of the Trump administration
to the European Union has suggested that Greece should consider leaving the European Union, or the euro in particular.
What do you make of this, and will this be then consistent with what Greece is suggesting? Because Greece has now said, no more
austerity measures. We're not going to agree to them. So, this is going to amount to an impasse that is not going to be resolvable.
Should Greece exit the euro?
ORDER IT NOW
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, it should, but the question is how should it do it, and on what terms? The problem is not only
leaving the euro. The problem really is the foreign debt that was bad debt that it was loaded onto by the Eurozone. If you leave
the euro and still pay the foreign debt, then you're still in a permanent depression from which you can never exit.
There's a broad moral principle here: If you lend money to a country that your statistics show cannot pay the debt, is there
really a moral obligation to pay the debt? Greece did have a commission two years ago saying that this debt is odious. But it's
not enough just to say there's an odious debt. You have to have something more positive.
I've been talking to Greek politicians and Syriza leaders about what's needed, and what is needed is a Declaration of Rights.
Just as the Westphalia rules in 1648, a Universal Declaration that countries should not be attacked in war, that countries should
not be overthrown by other countries. I think, the Declaration of International Law has to realize that no country should be obliged
to impose poverty on its population, and sell off the public domain in order to pay its foreign creditors.
The Declaration would say that if creditors make a debt that cannot be repaid, the debt is by definition odious, so there is
no need to pay it. Every country has the right not to pay debts that are unpayable except by bankrupting the country, and forcing
it to sell off their public domain to foreign countries. That's the very definition of sovereignty.
So, I'm hoping to work with politicians of a number of countries to draw up this Declaration of Debtor Rights. That's what's
been missing. There's an idea that if you withdraw from the euro, you can devalue your currency and can lower labor standards even
further, wipe out the pensions, and somehow squeeze out enough to pay the debt.
So, the problem isn't only the Eurozone. True, joining the euro meant that you're not allowed to run a budget deficit to pump
money into the economy to recover – like America has done. But the looming problem is that you have to pay debts that are so far
beyond your ability to pay that you'll end up like Haiti did after it rebelled after the French Revolution.
France said, sure, we'll give you your independence, but you'll have to reimburse us, for the fact that we no longer hold you
as slaves. You have to buy your freedom. You can't say slavery is wrong. You have to make us, the slaveholders, whole. So Haiti took
this huge foreign debt to France after it got its independence, and ended up not being able to develop.
A few years after that, in 1824, Greece had a revolution and found the same problem. It borrowed from the Ricardo brothers, the
brothers of David Ricardo, the economist and lobbyist for the bankers in London. Just like the IMF, he said that any country can
afford to repay its debts, because of automatic stabilization. Ricardo came out with a junk economics theory that is still held by
the IMF and the European Union today, saying that indebted countries can automatically pay.
Well, Greece ended up taking on an enormous debt, paying interest but still defaulting again and again. Each time it had to give
up more sovereignty. The result was basically a constant depression. Slow growth is what retarded Greece and much of the rest of
southern Europe.
So unless they tackle the debt problem, membership in the Eurozone or the European Union is really secondary.
The Nostalgia of Trump: Remembering the days when birds fell from the sky from the polluted air in L.A., When the Cuyahoga
River caught fire in Cleveland, death from black lung desease, death from white lung desease, death by crushing, ...
I don't ever see nostalgia for Trump. I wish to see him expunged from the Nation's as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with nostalgia for Trump.
Quite a while back Paine (who seems to be back here) characterized contemporary Republicans as "the party of a better
yesterday". This refers to many people's impression that when they were younger, at least looking back things were more
hopeful and remembered quality of life better. This is independent from the things you mentioned. In my own observation
the same phenomenon could be observed in prior generations of family and their acquaintances that experienced in various
degrees WW1 and WW2 and the postwar fallouts. Life had always been better when they were young, war or not.
As by most other generations apparently - I don't think this is anything specific to the boomers. By credible accounts
the Greeks were already complaining about "kids these days" a few millenia ago. "They are so not like 'we' used to be
- no merit and all depravity." How could society possibly continue to exist with this unfit generation having responsibility?
The difference between now and the pre-internet era is that now anybody and everybody can take a dump on current and
previous generations, and things in general, at the cost of next to nothing.
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics.
When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media
outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the
New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut
and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration.
To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only]
undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world."
Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White
House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House.
She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage
over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine
him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time
to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as
"The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to
MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in
their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind
Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So
you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in
the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate
media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially,
and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be
"investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw
precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how
powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer
Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence
in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of
people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him
about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration
who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of
staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. .
. . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration."
How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the
struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in
Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told
him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she
wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never
gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of
Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer.
Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as
Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald
Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally,
not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character
assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word
story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads,
"Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline
on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention
of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's
Italian Fascists.
"... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
"... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
"... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
"... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
"... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
"... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
"... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
"... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
"... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
"... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
"... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
"... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
"... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
"... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
"... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
"... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
"... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United
States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "
Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the
USA right now.
US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes,
according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department
are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador
Sergey Kislyk.
According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of
National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.
He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically
high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same
intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is
absolutely amazing.
Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate
a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo
(a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).
That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the
KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal
matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet
Nomenklatura , roughly 3
million people (and even bigger mistake!).
But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who
by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the
trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.
By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone
conversations with Vladimir Putin.
Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon
This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has
gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President
and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.
In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the "
pussyhat revolution " as
explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists,
you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat
revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image
on the right shows.
This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that
the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began
by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.
This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media
is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".
Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama
is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not
once, but twice.
What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!
How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for
rebellion and
sedition ?
So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they
were well covered by the media:
Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody
is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.
One more example:
Remember the pretty face of
Nayirah , the
Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti
incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador
to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of
Neda , who
" died on TV " in Iran?
Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who
wrote a letter to President
Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian
children".
Want even more proof?
Okay, click here
and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent
Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select
just two:
The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump
the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated
into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA
and Trump is the ultimate Evil.
This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.
My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having
accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down
and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment,
overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.
One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those
behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution
of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is,
indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown
and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth
against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how,
formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British
MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply
traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they
simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures
have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their
own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to
produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can
be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.
The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only
hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
Can he do that?
Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt
with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction
of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon
and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they
have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically
complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them
out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which
protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card:
General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President
will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces
to ensure "collaboration".
However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful
weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.
Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have
known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated
in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral
and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way:
while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis),
the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain
the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash
and burn into the scandal.
9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands,
possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real
investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into
911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political
handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately
give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful
man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use
the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately
find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination.
And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).
I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of
course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal:
the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin
once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".
You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.
First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state
will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule
and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional
investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail
Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the
institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion
floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using
nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear
attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following
signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot
be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes
and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war
anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the
US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously
on any topic?
Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?!
Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war,
including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.
There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.
Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished
thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will
he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?
I don't know.
I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture
perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the
rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular"
military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and
JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The
good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are
usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces).
SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.
Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against
the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough.
Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and
time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there
is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically
diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.
One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use
the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was
a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews
of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply
did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now
if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that
he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street"
take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists,
all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve
their goals.
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear
and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to
use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of
the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.
I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to
take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never
to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy
it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia
on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions
who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as
a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which
this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred
not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what
I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have
now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think
of as "deplorables
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American
masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian
equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "
быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen"
or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years
are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down
in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction
whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class
interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will
not get away with that again in 2017.
Philip Giraldi
January 24, 2017
1,300 Words
151 Comments
Reply
There is no limit to the hubris driven hypocrisy of America's stalwart
neoconservatives. A recent
Washington Post
front page article
entitled "'Never Trump' national-security Republicans fear
they have been blacklisted" shares with the reader the heartbreak of those
so-called GOP foreign policy experts who have apparently been ignored by the
presidential transition team seeking to staff senior positions in the new
administration. Author David Nakamura describes them as "some of the biggest names
in the Republican national security firmament, veterans of past GOP administration
who say, if called upon by President-elect Donald Trump, they stand ready to serve
their country again."
"But," Nakamura adds, "their phones aren't ringing." And I
wept openly as he went on to describe how they sit forlorn in a "state of
indefinite limbo" in their law firms, think tanks and university faculty lounges
just thinking about all the great things they can do for their country. Yes,
"serve their country," indeed. Nothing personal in it for them. Nothing personal
when they denounced Trump and called him incompetent, unqualified, a threat to the
nation and even joined Democrats in labeling him a racist, misogynist, homophobe,
Islamophobe and bigot. And they really got off when they explained in some detail
how The Donald was a Russian agent. Nothing personal. It's was only business. So
let's let bygones be bygones and, by the way, where are the jobs? Top level
Pentagon or National Security Council only, if you please!
And yes, they did make a mistake about some things in Iraq, but it was Obama
who screwed it up by not staying the course. And then there was Libya, the war
still going on in Afghanistan, getting rid of Bashar and that funny business in
Ukraine. It all could have gone better but, hey, if they had been fully in charge
for the past eight years to back up the greatly loved Vicki Nuland at the State
Department everything would be hunky dory.
Oh yeah, some of the more introspective neocons are guessing that the new
president just might be holding a grudge about those two "Never Trump"
letters
that more than 200 of them eventually signed. Many now believe that
they are on a blacklist. How unfair! To be sure, some of the language in the
letters was a bit intemperate, including assertions about Trump's personality,
character and intelligence. One letter
claimed
that the GOP candidate "lacks self-control and acts impetuously," that
he "exhibits erratic behavior," and that he is "fundamentally dishonest." Mitt
Romney, who did not sign the letters but was nevertheless extremely outspoken,
referred to Trump
as a "phony" and a "fraud."
One of the first anti-Trump letter's organizers, Professor Eliot Cohen
described presidential candidate Trump
as "a man utterly unfit for the
position by temperament, values and policy preferences." After the election, Cohen
even
continued his scathing attacks
on the new president, writing that "The
president-elect is surrounding himself with mediocrities whose chief
qualifications seem to be unquestioning loyalty." He goes on to describe them as
"second-raters."
Cohen, who reminds one of fellow Harvard bombast artist Alan Dershowitz, might
consider himself as "first rate" but that is a judgment that surely might be
challenged. He was a prominent
cheerleader for the Iraq War
and has been an advocate of overthrowing the
Iranian government by force. He opposed the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary
of Defense because Hagel had "made it clear that he [did] not want to engage in a
confrontation with Iran." Cohen, a notable Israel Firster in common with many of
his neocon brethren, has aggressively condemned even well-reasoned criticism of
the Israel Lobby and of Israel itself as anti-Semitism. Glenn Greenwald has
described him as "extremist a neoconservative and warmonger as it gets."
One has to wonder at the often-professed intelligence and experience of Cohen
and his neocon friends if they couldn't figure out in advance that backing the
wrong horse in an election might well have consequences. And there is a certain
cynicism intrinsic in the neoconservative whine. Many of the
dissidents
like Cohen, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Eric Edelman, Kori Schake,
Reuel Gerecht, Kenneth Adelman and Michael Morell who came out most
enthusiastically for Hillary Clinton were undoubtedly trimming their sails to
float effortlessly into her anticipated hawkish administration. Gerecht, who has
advocated war in Syria, said of the Democratic candidate that "She's not a
neoconservative, but Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American power."
That the defeat of Hillary was also a defeat of the neoconservatives and their
alphabet soup of institutes and think tanks is sometimes overlooked but was a
delicious dish served cold for those of us who have been praying for such a
result. It was well worth the endless tedium when watching Fox News on election
night to see Bill Kristol's face when it became clear that Trump would be
victorious. Back to the drawing board, Bill!
And there may be yet another shocker in store for the neocons thanks to Trump.
The fact that the new administration is drawing on the business world for staffing
senior positions means that he has been less interested in hiring think tank and
revolving door academic products to fill the government bureaucracies. This has
led Josh Rogin of the
Washington Post
to warn that the
death of think tanks
as we know them could be on the horizon. He quotes one
think-tanker as opining that "the people around Trump view think tanks as for sale
for the highest bidder. They have empowered other centers of gravity for staffing
this administration." Rogin adds "If the Trump team succeeds in diminishing the
influence of Washington think tanks and keeping their scholars out of government,
policymaking will suffer. Many of these scholars hold the institutional knowledge
and deep subject matter expertise the incoming administration needs."
Rogin, who is himself a neocon who
has been
an associated "expert" with the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) affiliated Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (WINEP), is peddling bullshit. The record
of the geniuses who have been guiding U.S. foreign policy ever
since the Reagan Administration has not been exactly reassuring
and can be considered downright disastrous if one considers
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Think tanks have agendas
that in most cases actually work against the public interest.
Their designation of staff as "scholars" is a contrivance as
their scholarship consists of advocacy for specific causes and
ideologies. They should be seen for what they are and what they
are is not very pretty as they are into endless self-promotion.
Fear mongering Danielle Pletka, who is vice president for
foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute, has
supported every war coming out of the past two Administrations
and has called repeatedly for more of the same to close the deal
on Syria and Iran. Like Cohen, Rogin, Kagan, Gerecht and many
other neocons she is both Jewish and an Israel Firster. And her
annual salary is
reported to be
$275,000.
It is a pleasure to watch the think tanks begin thinking of
their own demises. It is also intriguing to speculate that Trump
with his populist message might just take it all one step
farther and shut the door on the K Street lobbyists and other
special interests, which have symbiotic relationships with the
think tanks. The think tanks sit around and come up with
formulations that benefit certain groups, individuals and
corporate interests and then reap the rewards when the cash is
handed out at the end of the year. How fantastic it would be to
see lobbies and the parasites who work for them put out of
business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are
simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security
policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a
wonderful world it would be.
Even more wonderful if these psychopaths were held to account and subjected
to some solitary space for lengthy contemplation. Manning is due to vacate some
digs soon so there is space available.
These losers think they are indispensable. In fact, the talent pool is deep,
deep, deep. In my own social sciences department, in a tier-3 university, there
are multiple people who speak multiple languages from West Asia, and keep
current on what is happening RIGHT NOW. Plug them into the latest info from
NSA, and they would be excellent filters–reducing the noise to policy-relevant
information. If this is true in my shop, it must be true at the tier-1s and 2s.
The President's team can find the talent, if they just look for it.
Mark Green
,
January 24, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT \n
200 Words
What a delicious take on the demise of the neocons. Unfortunately, these
vampires have a way of coming back from the near-dead. They're not going
anywhere right away. NY-Washington is their hood.
True, it's possible that the salaries of a few of these warstars might dip
into the low triple-digits, but these rapacious insiders will never leave
Washington voluntarily. Parasites tend not wander far from their host.
Equally worrisome is the fact that Trump is surrounded by a fresh, new cabal
of Israel-firsters. And the Prez has already indicated (according to MSM news
reports) that he's prepared to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and
'undivided' capitol.
Maybe this Jerusalem claim is exaggerated or fake, but even The Donald knows
that by pleasing the Jews now he will likely encounter reduced political
headwinds later. So like any politician, Trump's doing a balancing act.
This unspoken truism concerning Jewish power is why the Zions generally
emerge victorious in Washington. Fighting them just doesn't pay; even when
you're the President of the United States.
Cloak And Dagger
,
January 24, 2017 at 7:06 am GMT \n
200 Words
Phil,
if our much-beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling
the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on
the vine
From your mouth to Trump's ears! If the lobbies cease to exist, so will the
bribes to Israel-firsters in Congress. Their demise would be particularly sweet
as they, more than anyone, represent the vilest of 5th columnists in our
government, a veritable den of vipers that personifies corruption.
I can only scoff at the "wisdom" of these think-tank "scholars" to conceive
that publicly opposing the election of a victorious president would have no
negative consequences. Even the holiest of saints would refuse to turn the
other cheek. The denouncements from these charlatans were remarkable. By what
possible rationale would they perceive that Trump would welcome them into his
government? It boggles the mind!
I hope that Trump publicly chastises these rogues so that there remains no
possibility of them darkening the doorsteps of the Whitehouse under some future
sympathetic president. Ah, to see them pelted with rotten tomatoes and shamed
for how they have harmed this nation! It would warm the cockles of my heart!
I am beginning to feel the first twinges of optimism after a long time. I
hope nothing happens to piss on this spark before it has had a chance to become
a flame.
Antiwar7
,
January 24, 2017 at 7:16 am GMT \n
This would appear to make the Trump presidency worthwhile no matter how bad
his domestic policy may end up being, though his elimination of the so-called
"trade" pacts is already a positive development which renders many of later
negative developments more reversible than the neoliberal trade pacts would
have been under the harpy. The bottom line is that no nukes is good news, and
that, hopefully, the arrogance and criminality of this crowd of war criminals
has sealed their oblivion.
AmericaFirstNow
,
Website
January 24, 2017 at 8:46 am GMT \n
ISIS result of Israeli Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq, Syria and beyond
:
I don't see what they're whining about since most of them probably don't
really need the jobs and Trump will most likely implement their most cherished
pro-Izzy policies in any case.
Anyway, the more whining the better. It's music to my ears.
these Judeo-globalists aren't just warmongers, they're Class A War
Criminals: the number of people massacred in the neo-cons' wars of choice –
Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Syria – in Syria alone nearly a
half-million dead – continues to mount day after bloody day. What's left of
Syria – just look at some of the hundreds of youtube videos on that
Zionist-induced butchery – is enough to make one weep; and it's only thanks to
Russia and Hezbollah that ISIS – Isramerica's pet headchopping terrorists –
aren't setting up shop in Damascus right now and heading for Lebanon. I wish I
could share Giraldi's confidence that Trump will continue to exclude the Jew
neo-cons and their Israel ueber alles machinations from his regime. But, given
Trump's own well-known rabid Zionism, I fear he may eventually blunder into a
terminal war with Russia over yet another object of neo-con bloodlust: Iran.
"How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for
them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are
simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and
their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it would
be."
AMEN!
Israel 1st AIPAC agent Jared Kushner (who is an orthodox Jew too) is senior
White House advisor to Donald Trump and is bringing in AIPAC friends as well
(Trump has put Kushner in charge of bringing about a 'peace agreement' between
Israel and the Palestinians):
@Mark Green
What a delicious take on the demise of the neocons. Unfortunately, these
vampires have a way of coming back from the near-dead. They're not going
anywhere right away. NY-Washington is their hood.
True, it's possible that the salaries of a few of these warstars might
dip into the low triple-digits, but these rapacious insiders will never
leave Washington voluntarily. Parasites tend not wander far from their
host.
Equally worrisome is the fact that Trump is surrounded by a fresh, new
cabal of Israel-firsters. And the Prez has already indicated (according
to MSM news reports) that he's prepared to recognize Jerusalem as
Israel's eternal and 'undivided' capitol.
Maybe this Jerusalem claim is exaggerated or fake, but even The Donald
knows that by pleasing the Jews now he will likely encounter reduced
political headwinds later. So like any politician, Trump's doing a
balancing act.
This unspoken truism concerning Jewish power is why the Zions
generally emerge victorious in Washington. Fighting them just doesn't
pay; even when you're the President of the United States.
if our much-beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer
calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks
are withering on the vine
From your mouth to Trump's ears! If the lobbies cease to exist, so will
the bribes to Israel-firsters in Congress. Their demise would be
particularly sweet as they, more than anyone, represent the vilest of 5th
columnists in our government, a veritable den of vipers that personifies
corruption.
I can only scoff at the "wisdom" of these think-tank
"scholars" to conceive that publicly opposing the election of a
victorious president would have no negative consequences. Even the
holiest of saints would refuse to turn the other cheek. The denouncements
from these charlatans were remarkable. By what possible rationale would
they perceive that Trump would welcome them into his government? It
boggles the mind!
I hope that Trump publicly chastises these rogues so that there
remains no possibility of them darkening the doorsteps of the Whitehouse
under some future sympathetic president. Ah, to see them pelted with
rotten tomatoes and shamed for how they have harmed this nation! It would
warm the cockles of my heart!
I am beginning to feel the first twinges of optimism after a long
time. I hope nothing happens to piss on this spark before it has had a
chance to become a flame.
"Bribes to Israel firsters in Congress" sounds like wishful thinking (about
the end of lobbying for Israel) confusing your understanding of how things
work.
Isreal firsters aren't the ones who need bribing and the effective bribing
of Congressmen to vote the way any particular lobby wants is all about money
given to or withheld from them or potential opponents so that their campaigns
directly or indirectly have the superior funding.
Lobbies and think tanks may trim their budgets and staff numbers under the
Trump presidency. But can you explain how or why the flow of money in support
of those who vote the "right way" is going to stop?
Ram
,
January 24, 2017 at 11:38 am GMT \n
100 Words
We should NOT be too hasty to judge what's happening. Tel Aviv seems more
than happy with Trump and Trump's appointments from the very same swamp that he
so ridiculed, must be cause for anxiety.
The Neocon Lament
Nobody wants them in Trump's Washington
Even allowing that this is a bit of an exaggeration, it's one of the
happiest headlines I've read in a long, long time.
Now maybe we can get
to work on convincing the MSM that putting
"America First"
isn't actually hideously racist and anti-semitic.
Well I can dream, can't I?
Agree.
"Think tanks have agendas that in most cases actually work against the public
interest They should be seen for what they are and what they are is not very
pretty as they are into endless self-promotion. Fear mongering Danielle Pletka,
who is vice president for foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute,
has supported every war coming out of the past two Administrations Like Cohen,
Rogin, Kagan, Gerecht and many other neocons she is both Jewish and an Israel
Firster. And her annual salary is reported to be $275,000."
They are covered in blood of the innocent people. The ziocons are modern-day
cannibals.
Tom Welsh
,
January 24, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT \n
100 Words
"She's not a neoconservative, but Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with
American power."
War crimes. Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American
*war
crimes*
. Power is fine, as long as it is exercised justly and within
the law. Clinton and her tribe have exulted in using power to trample on the
law – and everyone else. Remember – "we came, we saw, he died cackle, cackle,
cackle"?
Tom Welsh
,
January 24, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT \n
200 Words
"If the Trump team succeeds in diminishing the influence of Washington think
tanks and keeping their scholars out of government, policymaking will suffer.
Many of these scholars hold the institutional knowledge and deep subject matter
expertise the incoming administration needs."
That's a laugh, coming from a colleague of the fellow who told us that:
" guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he
defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study
of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment
principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really
works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create
our own reality. And while you're studying that reality judiciously, as you
will we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too,
and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all
of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
These think tanks are overrated But they are overrated for a purpose – to
have reliable ally in media administration defense and foreign policy They
ensure a continuity. Think Tank is the one -stop shopping point . It provides
ready mix of useful ideas for the imperial adventures and domestic control .
Neocons have lost the job but doesn't mean the same job wont get done or the
jobs be removed from the goals and aims . Neocons are angry mad and fuming
,just like Democrats became when Bush Jr came to power and just like the
antiwar ant corporate pro liberal agenda group are getting mad and furious at
Trump after remaining brain dead for 8 yrs under Obama . Partisan fights for
the spoils and nothing more going on here .
It is still very good .
There will be some nice new developments in the process of fight for lost
ground,the Neocons will start tearing apart the system They are vicious just
like the ISIS is .It's them or none .
The fight will expose more truth and realities to the American public than
any truth commission will ever do . Trump in his few effective and pregnant
moments of arrogance and disdain have exposed more about Iraq war, WMD , role
of the neocons and issues surrounding 911 than any commission ever did or could
have achieved .Those wouldn't have surfaced had the neocons kept quiet and not
fought Trump. Those truths were known to millions but Trump gave it the seal of
approval and made those truths earn the rightful place in American narrative .
Neocons may be warmongers Israeli firtsers but they are also self promoting
bastards To promote themselves against the stiff resistance from the new elites
,they will harm the objectives of the Thinktank They will blame everybody They
have a track record of doing so. They blamed Bush Cheney intelligence and
military for each and every failure they they themselves brought upon America
from pre 911 to -p0st 2007 . WaPo will not stay passive observer .We will be
regaled by the groans and moans of the laments
woodNfish
,
January 24, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
100 Words
How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for
them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives
are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy
and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it
would be.
What a beautiful thing it would be! Pass the popcorn!
In 2006, the DHS's Department of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ran an
internationally cooperative investigation
into the purchase of subscriptions of child
pornography online. Code-named Project Flicker, the investigation uncovered the identities of
30,000 child porn subscribers in 132 different nations. Some 250 of these identities belonged to
civilian and military employees of the U.S. Defense Department, who gave their real names and
purchased the porn with government .mil email addresses-some with the highest security clearances
available. In response, the Pentagon's Department of Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS)
cross-referenced ICE's list with current employment roles and began a series of prosecutions.
A
DCIS report
from July 2010 shows that 30 of these individuals were investigated, despite
uncovering a new total of
264 Defense employees
and contractors who had purchased child pornography online. 13 had Top
Secret security clearance. 8 had NATO Secret security clearance. 42 had Secret security
clearance. 4 had Interim Secret security clearance. A total of 76 individuals had Secret security
clearance or higher.
Yet, the investigations were halted entirely after only some 50 total names were investigated
at all, and
just 10 were prosecuted
.
A full 212
of the individuals on ICE's list were never even given the most cursory
investigation at all. (Note: The number 5200 keeps popping up in sources covering this-for
instance,
see here
-and I'm not sure what that number is for: American subscribers? Pentagon email
addresses that weren't confirmed to have actually been used by Pentagon employees, but still may
have been? I'll leave it to anyone interested enough to pursue these individual leads to see if
they can figure that out and get back to us.)
In 2011, the story resurfaced when
Anderson Cooper covered it
with (again) Senator Chuck Grassley on CNN. After this, the story
appears to have sunk straight back down into the memory hole yet again. Neither Anderson Cooper
nor CNN appear to have given a follow–up in the five years since the story of the failed
investigation first aired-why not? And why wasn't the first airing enough to lead to mass outrage
and calls for action anyway? See
here
for another summary of the squashed investigation from 2014.
"... The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal first "broke" in the far-right blogosphere. The accusation they made was that these gangs were being allowed to operate undisturbed because everyone was too afraid of "appearing racist" to properly investigate them . . . and nobody listened to the far-right bloggers who were breaking this story because they were afraid of "appearing racist" if they gave any credibility to those far-right sources, too. Never mind that it seemed paranoid to rely on bloggers ..."
"... the far-right blogosphere turned out to be right. ..."
"... those people ..."
"... The Podesta Emails ..."
"... The evidence is of wildly varying levels of quality, ranging from the pareidolia of "Jesus is appearing to me in my toast" to "wait, that's actually pretty damn creepy." The mountain of claims and observations and speculations being compiled in places like Voat and Steemit are too overwhelming for any one person to hope to wade through sorting wheat from chaff, and while I don't intend to try, I will summarize some just a little bit of it here. ..."
"... While many of these claims are wild speculation over coincidences (though by no means all of them are), at some point I think a bunch of weird coincidences involving pedophilia and kids becomes sort of damning in and of itself. In one email , Podesta is among those being invited to a farm and the host says, "Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you'll have some further entertainment, and they will be in [the] pool for sure ." ..."
"... Could that have an innocent explanation? Sure, maybe. But inviting a group of adult men to a gathering and calling young children "further entertainment" while listing their ages is ..."
"... All the Children ..."
"... Here are just a few of the more "institutional" coincidences involved in the story: one of the men on the small list of people found "liking" photos like this one on these individuals' Instagram accounts is Arun Rao , the U.S. Attorney Chief, charged with prosecuting cases of child pornography. ..."
"... Besta Pizza, the business whose logo so closely resembled the "little boy lover" logo, is owned by Andrew Kline , who was one of four attorneys in the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit of the Department of Justice. Isn't it just a little ..."
"... The disturbing bit is that the photo uses the tag "#chickenlovers," and "chicken lover" is in fact ..."
"... Chicken Hawk ..."
"... Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite ..."
"... In addition to Jeffrey Epstein, the Podesta brothers are also friends with convicted sex offender Clement Freud as well as convicted serial child molester Dennis Hastert . ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... And we do know that this has happened before. ..."
"... The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal ..."
"... how we should respond to the possibility. ..."
Beginning in 1997, in an English town of more than 100,000 people, eight Pakistani men stood at
the core of a group involving as many as three hundred suspects who abused, gang-raped, pimped and
trafficked, by the most conservative estimate, well over a thousand of the town's young girls for
years.
The police were eventually accused of not just turning a blind eye, but of
participating in the abuse - even supplying the Pakistani gangs with drugs and tipping them off
when they heard of colleagues searching for children they knew to be in the gangs' possession.
Others were afraid of investigating the gangs or calling attention to their behavior because it
would have been politically incorrect to accuse the town's ethnic community of such a rampant and
heinous crime - in the words of one English writer, "
Fears of appearing racist trumped fears of more children being abused ."
But when this story first broke, guess where it appeared?
Here's how a blogger writing under the name Mehrdad Amanpour tells the story of how the story first started reaching people:
Some years ago, a friend sent me a shocking article. It said hundreds of British girls were
being systematically gang-raped by Muslim gangs. It claimed this was being covered-up.
I've never had time for conspiracy theories, especially when they look as hateful as those
in the article. So I checked the links and sources in the piece. I found an American racist-far-right
website and from there, saw the original source was a similarly unpleasant website in the UK.
I did a brief search for corroboration from reputable mainstream sources. I found none. So
I wrote a curt reply to my friend: "I'd appreciate it if you didn't send me made-up crap from
neo–Nazi websites."
Some months later, I read the seminal exposé of the (mainly) ethnic-Pakistani grooming gang
phenomenon by Andrew Norfolk in The Sunday Times .
I was stunned and horrified - not just that these vile crimes were indeed happening and endemic,
but that they really were being ignored and "covered-up" by public authorities and the mainstream
media.
The
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal first "broke" in the far-right blogosphere. The accusation
they made was that these gangs were being allowed to operate undisturbed because everyone was too
afraid of "appearing racist" to properly investigate them . . . and nobody listened to the far-right
bloggers who were breaking this story because they were afraid of "appearing racist" if they gave
any credibility to those far-right sources, too. Never mind that it seemed paranoid to rely on
bloggers to report truths like these when the allegations were so wide-reaching, involving
a literal conspiracy within the police force.
And yet, years after no one was willing to take them seriously, the far-right blogosphere
turned out to be right.
Well over a thousand (mostly) white young girls were being abused by (mostly) Pakistani
gangs.
And the authorities were covering it up.
We are now, once again, in the stage of an evolving scandal that Mehrdad Amanpour described his
experience with above. Just to be clear, I'm not going to commit myself to the idea that this is
going to be as huge as Rotherham was. We should be careful: we don't know what would or wouldn't
be confirmed with a proper investigation. The question here is not whether we've gotten to the bottom
of this online. The question is whether there is enough here to justify thinking there should be
a proper investigation.
And the parallel with Rotherham is that the relatively small number of people asking for that
are mostly the loathsome kinds of people who run "racist far-right websites." So, since the claims
are inherently conspiratorial, and the mainstream doesn't want to be associated with those people
who are talking about it, it is once again all too easy to just dismiss the claims out of hand
as paranoia run wild.
Again, the evolution of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was an extremely
painful lesson that the mainstream can be wrong and the "paranoid racist far-right"
can be right. And that lesson was far too expensive to simply let go to waste.
The name of this scandal is Pizzagate.
It gets the name for two reasons: first, because at the center of the scandal are high-level Washington
insiders who own a handful of businesses in the DC area, including a couple pizzerias (Comet Ping
Pong and Besta Pizza), who have fallen under suspicion for involvement in a child sex abuse ring.
Second, because the first questions arose in peoples' minds as a result of some very bizarre emails
revealed by Wikileaks in The
Podesta Emails that, quite simply, just sound strange (and usually involve weird
references to pizza). One of the strangest emails involves Joe Podesta being asked this question:
"The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related). Is it yours?"
The evidence is of wildly varying levels of quality, ranging from the pareidolia of "Jesus
is appearing to me in my toast" to "wait, that's actually pretty damn creepy." The mountain of claims
and observations and speculations being compiled in places like
Voat and
Steemit are too overwhelming
for any one person to hope to wade through sorting wheat from chaff, and while I don't intend to
try, I will summarize some just a little bit of it here.
While many of these claims are wild speculation over coincidences (though by no means all
of them are), at some point I think a bunch of weird coincidences involving pedophilia and kids becomes
sort of damning in and of itself. In
one email , Podesta
is among those being invited to a farm and the host says, "Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport
Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you'll have some further entertainment,
and they will be in [the] pool for sure ."
Could that have an innocent explanation? Sure, maybe. But inviting a group of adult men to
a gathering and calling young children "further entertainment" while listing their ages is
weird , whether it ends up having an explanation or not.
If I was getting messages that listed the ages of young children that would be in a pool
And it turned out that the logo for my business contained a symbol strikingly close to
the "little boy lover" logo used by pedophiles to signify that their interest is in young boys rather
than girls . . .
And the bands that showed up at my restaurant had albums called All the Children
with images on the cover
of a child putting phallic-shaped objects into his mouth . . .
. . . and were found making creepy jokes about pedophilia (in reference to Jared Fogle: "
we all have our preferences
. . . ") . . . and there were instagram photos coming out of kids ("jokingly?") taped
to the tables in my restaurant . . .
. . . frankly, I would start asking questions about myself.
Here are just a few of the more "institutional" coincidences involved in the story: one of
the men on the small list of people found "liking" photos like this one on these individuals' Instagram
accounts is
Arun Rao , the U.S. Attorney Chief, charged with prosecuting cases of child pornography.
Besta Pizza, the business whose logo so closely resembled the "little boy lover" logo, is
owned by
Andrew Kline , who was one of four attorneys in the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit of the
Department of Justice. Isn't it just a little unusual that someone that high up in a human
trafficking division would fail to notice the symbolism?
For yet another coincidence,
Lauren Silsby-Gayler is the former director of The New Life Children's Refuge in Haiti. It is
a matter of public record that she was caught, prosecuted, and sent to jail while in that role for
trying to abduct dozens of children, most of whom had homes and families. The
main lawyer paid
to represent Silsby-Gayler, "President of the Sephardic Jewish community in the Dominican Republic,"
was himself suspected of involvement in human trafficking.
When the Clintons gained influence in the region, one of their first acts was to work to
get Silsby-Gayler
off the hook . Among the Podesta Wikileaks are
State Department emails
discussing their case. Meanwhile, she now works on the executive board of
AlertSense . . .
which collaborates with IPAWS to send out nation-wide Amber Alerts.
While some of the supposed "codewords" people have claimed to have identified in Pizzagate appear
to be made up, there is at least one unambiguous instance: here is an Instagrammed photo posted by
James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong that appears innocent enough: a man carrying a young
child with a beaded necklace draped around both of their necks.
The disturbing bit is that the photo uses the tag "#chickenlovers," and "chicken lover" is
in fact an established term to refer to a pedophile - someone who loves "chicken," which
is also unambiguously an established term to refer to underage children (you can see this in the
gay slang dictionary subset of the
Online Dictionary
of Playground Slang ).
Complain all you want about the "speculative" and "paranoid" online discussions of Pizzagate,
but when you have clearer-cut cases like this one where James Alefantis absolutely, unquestionably
did in fact post a photo of a man holding an infant and the one and only hashtag he used for the
photo involved a term that unquestionably is a reference to pedophilia, in a context where it is
clear that there is nothing else here that "chicken" could possibly have been referring to, the likelihood
that more speculative claims might have truth to them is increased.
There is a 1994 documentary expose on NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) called
Chicken
Hawk .
Here is yet another reference from a watchdog group from 2006, proving that this one existed
well before Pizzagate surfaced. Another confirmed fact dug up by the paranoid right-wing conspiracy
nuts on the Internet?
So here are a few more things we do know. We know that Bill Clinton has taken dozens
of international flights on a plane colloquially known as the "
Lolita Express " with Jeffrey Epstein, a man who spent 13 months in jail after being convicted
of soliciting a 13-year-old
prostitute . We know that Hillary Clinton's staff knew that
Anthony Weiner was sexting underage girls all the way back in 2011 - and covered it up. Guess
whose laptop revealed evidence that Hillary Clinton went on flights on Jeffrey Epstein's "
Lolita Express " along with Bill? That's right: Anthony Weiner's.
Now do you understand why the mainstream media was so eager to spin these emails as just a "distraction"
during the election?
The staff that ignored Weiner's sexting of young children included John Podesta himself, whose
brother Tony is one of the very men at the center of Pizzagate. Tony Podesta has rather warped tastes
in art. For instance, he owns a bronze statue of a decapitated man in a contorted position identical
to a well-known photograph of one of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer's victims:
(See
here for the disturbing photo of the real victim.)
The same news story that features the image above also mentions the fact that John Podesta's
bedroom contains multiple images from a photographer "known for documentary-style pictures
of naked teenagers in their parents' suburban homes.")
Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite artist is Biljana Djurdjevic, whose art heavily
features images of children in BDSM-esque positions in large showers. Here's one with a row of young
girls in a shower with their hands behind their backs in a position that suggests bondage:
Here's one with a young boy in a shower tied up in the air with his hands over his head:
In addition to Jeffrey Epstein, the Podesta brothers are also friends with convicted sex offender
Clement Freud as well as convicted serial child molester
Dennis Hastert .
We do know that the New York Times , which is now dismissing Pizzagate in its
entirety as a hoax, is run by Mark Thompson - who was credibly accused a few years back of lying
to help cover up a scandal involving another high-profile public figure involved in child sex abuse,
Jimmy Savile
, during his time as
head of the BBC .
And we do know that this has happened before.
Lawrence King , the
leader of the Black Republican Caucus, who sang the national anthem at the Republican convention
in 1984, was accused by multiple claimed victims of trafficking and abusing boys out of the Boys
Town charity for years. You can
hear the chilling testimony
from three people who claim to have been victimized by King in a documentary produced shortly
after the events transpired.
You can hear the FBI, even after they received extensive testimony from victims, explain in their
own words that they weren't going to prosecute King because if anything were wrong with him, he would
have been prosecuted by a lower authority already. Eventually, King was found "O. J. guilty" of abusing
Paul Bonacci - convicted in civil court, acquitted in criminal court.
But that's not the question here. The question is how we should respond to the possibility.
Do we take the possibility seriously? History clearly indicates that we should. Even if it did
turn out to be nothing at all, I would still be more proud to belong to a community willing
to take the possibility seriously and call for investigation than I would to belong to a community
that dismissed the possibility far too hastily and luckily turned out to be right - even as it did
this and turned out to be wrong in so many cases like Rotherham before.
The real horror here would be to live in a society that responded as Reddit has - by shutting
down the whole conversation entirely, banning
r/pizzagate even while keeping subreddits like r/pedofriends, "a place for (non-offending) pedophiles
and allies to make friends with each other!" alive.
Over on his blog,
Scott Adams
asks us to keep in mind cases where confirmation bias did lead to false allegations of institutional
pedophilia, to caution against excessive confidence. (He hastens to add: "I want to be totally clear
here that I'm not saying Pizzagate is false. I see the mountain of evidence too. And collectively
it feels totally persuasive to me. It might even be true. I'm not debating the underlying truth of
it. That part I don't know.")
But which is worse? If all the evidence coming out of Pizzagate is entirely
false, what have we lost by spending time on it? On the other hand, if even five percent of the allegations
that have been made surrounding the topic are true, what have we lost by ignoring them? Which is
worse: spending too much time pursuing and thoroughly vetting false leads, or looking the other way
while any amount of child abuse goes on?
According to the FBI's National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) database, nearly 470,000 children disappear in the United States alone each year.
This number is dubious for a number of reasons. It
looks like some number of runaways
end up in the NCIC count, and to make matters worse, repeat offenders can make it into the data multiple
times. So that would suggest that the real number must be lower than this tally; but on the other
hand, we also know that many missing children are never reported in the first place, so it's possible
that that could boost the number back up. The bottom line, however, seems to be that there is no
reliable way to determine how many total children are actually missing in the U.S.
Either way, though, even if correcting for these errors took out 90% of the disappearances in
the NCIC database, and there were no unreported disappearances to account for at all, I think even
the resulting 50,000 per year would still be enough to call the problem systematic and justify suspicion
that these disappearances could well involve organized efforts-given that we already know of so many
pedophile rings in so many powerful institutions.
In 2013, Canada busted a ring involving
more than 300 adults , who had teachers, doctors, and nurses heavily represented among them.
A pedophile ring has just been identified in the
highest levels of UK football (Americans
know the sport as soccer). Norwegian police also just uncovered a ring of 50 organized pedophiles
mostly
working in the tech sector , once again including elected officials, teachers, and lawyers. The
Vatican scandals can practically go without mention - institutional involvement in child sex exploitation
is nearly an a priori given.
And the children that are being raped and murdered in the photos passed around by these
child porn rings are coming from somewhere . And when figures like politicians, teachers,
and lawyers are involved in the rings, it's hardly inconceivable that they could be involved in disappearances.
Have we identified one here?
Only time will tell. But we deserve to be paid attention. We deserve to have the matter taken
(Reprinted from Counter-Currents
Publishing by permission of author or representative)
Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite artist is Biljana Djurdjevic, whose art heavily features
images of children in BDSM-esque positions in large showers.
Psychopathy in the Pedophile (From Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, P 304-320,
1998, Theodore Millon, Erik Simonsen, et al, eds.–See NCJ-179236)
This paper argues that pedophilia may represent a special case or subcase of psychopathy and
that the main aims of both the psychopath and the pedophile are to dominate, to use, and to subjugate
another person in service of the grandiose self. [...] It notes that the major differences between
psychopaths and pedophiles are that the object of the predation for the pedophile is a child and
that the overt behavioral manifestation of the pathology is sexual.
Well I would certainly like him to stay, but for some reason
he's decided to start making things really hard for himself.
Having remained silent on Obama, the guy most responsible for
sending him into exile, Snowden has chosen this moment of all
moments to make good with the very Lügenpresse that once smeared
him as a Russian chekist and support the Soros-funded #WomensMarch
against Trump.
Russia provided asylum on the condition that he refrain from excessive political activism
against the US, and this was under Obama. Why would this policy
change under Trump of all people? There are several hypotheses:
(1) Attacking Trump is the cool thing to do now, and doing so might give Snowden a chance
of claiming asylum in a European state. It is
clear that Snowden has always felt unease
about his Russia asylum and has ceaselessly –
and all things considered, rather rudely –
been trying to exchange it for asylum in some
European or Latin American state.
(2) Snowden has good reason to believe that he will be part of an eventual pro
quid pro deal with Trump, so anything he does now is irrelevant anyway. So he
might as well give vent to his true feelings. I certainly don't blame him for
this. He has no reason to like Trump personally, who
has implied
he would like to see Snowden executed. More importantly, neither
Putin nor Trump – authoritarian personalities with no time for "social justice"
and who view the surveillance apparatus as a useful tool of the state – sync in
the least with his liberal cypherpunk ideals.
And Snowden is an idealist above all else. And that is to his credit.
But unfortunately, the people who run Russia and the US (from both aisles) are
not idealists, but hard-nosed realists. Getting Snowden back would be a diplomatic
coup for Trump. And I'm sorry, Eddie, but much as Russians might like you – not,
of course, for your principled idealism, but for dragging Obama through the dirt –
but a deal that would guarantee the safety and security of their compatriots in
the Donbass are worth more than one person.
That said, there's one major disadvantage to Russia of extraditing Snowden:
Whereas it previously had a good record of looking out for defectors – even the
Yeltsin regime never extradited Western spies for the Soviet Union – future
defectors would think twice about going to Russia if they believe they would be
used as a bargaining chip whenever the political winds change.
As such, perhaps it would be best for everyone involved, including Snowden
himself, to attempt to strike a deal in which he goes back to the US of his "own
volition," but Trump gets to show off his magnanimity by pardoning him soon after
and stumping the more principled of his liberal critics, the ones who are
genuinely committed to civil rights instead of thinking whatever Soros and the CIA
tell them to.
The alternative would be Snowden becoming a cause celebre to the globalists,
with their previous smearing of him as a Russian spy and (bipartisan) calls for
his imprisonment and even execution being quietly swept under the carpet.
Regardless of your own position on whether Snowden is a traitor or not, that is
certainly not a scenario we would want.
← Dugin, Putin's
39th Brain
Category:
Foreign
Policy
Tags:
Edward Snowden
Recently from author
[Attacking Trump is the cool thing to do now, and doing so might give
Snowden a chance of claiming asylum in a European state.]
Pity Euros are all so cowardly that they wouldn't give him refuge even to
spite Trump. I suppose he might have some chance of avoiding extradition in
France as a cinema personality, or in Britain as an autist.
He would surely have to do five years of twenty in gaol, meaning a gamble
that Trump would still be there to pardon him. He is probably having the time
of his life in Russia, like Lee Harvey Oswald did.
Trump does not want Snowden back; Snowden is irrelevant and would only be a
distraction at this point.
The situation would be "lose-lose" in a different sense.
If Trump has Snowden prosecuted, he will needlessly anger many good
Americans (and I don't mean the whiny special snowflakes, although many of
those would be angered. but right-wing conservative constitutionalists opposed
to the police state who view Snowden as a hero).
If Trump does not prosecute, it would look
extremely bad
that a
government employee sworn to secrecy does not do hard time. A very bad
precedent considering the United States has 100,000 employees in its
intelligence agencies.
Thus , Trump probably prefers that Snowden stay where he is.
As ever, you fail to mention that Snowden might be a deep state agent, not a
true leaker. This might be why Russia only gave him "temporary asylum."
His Wikileaks appeared via the Guardian, Der Spiegel, NYT, WAPO and other MSM
outlets. Other outlets included Zionist pornographer, Glenn Greenwald.
A genuine leaker would keep away from such outlets.
Was I the only one who noticed that RT's coverage of the inauguration was
snarky? Pretty down to the left as I saw it. So what game is Putin playing
here?
200 Words
NEW!
@spandrell
Was I the only one who noticed that RT's coverage of the inauguration
was... snarky? Pretty down to the left as I saw it. So what game is Putin
playing here?
The only game here is that you are buying into the meme that Putin controls
everything in Russia.
The more banal reality is that RT is disproportionately staffed by leftists.
I mean, of its Anglo employees, people who to the extent they had a strong
ideology was one that was in strong opposition to the dominant Western
narrative at that time (Bush neoconism, Obama surveillance state), who exactly
do you think was being selected for during 2005-2014?
And the Anglo office is ideologically diverse relative to the German one,
which as I have heard is basically a branch of Die Linke.
On the other hand, its worth bearing in mind that the "Alt Right" only
became big allies of Russia c.2015 and to be quite frank it is not even very
clear that they will be reliable ones. There are both Russophiles there
(Spencer, Anglin, etc) but no shortage of Russophobes either (Johnson, Colin
Liddell, the really old school Nazis, etc) and its not clear who will win out,
especially if it were to get stronger and no longer need Russia as a foil to
the forces of Poz. "You Have Outlived Your Usefulness," etc.
I find the characterisations of Snowden as a cypherpunk and an idealist
rather surprising. No cypherpunk whom I know would work for the NSA in the
first place, and wouldn't someone who underwent a conversion to cypherpunkery
while working at the NSA simply dump the information publicly rather than give
it to curators? As for idealism, it seems to me that Snowden has argued rather
for principled realism with respect to the balance of personal privacy and
state security. Many serious people who have worked for the NSA have argued
that mass surveillance is an enormous drain on resources and that if
surveillance were targeted and regulated, there would be both more privacy and
more state security. But maybe they are wrong and there will always be a
ruthless arms race between those who want privacy and those who want authority.
In that sense perhaps Snowden's position is idealistic, but it is a rather
moderate kind of idealism.
@Chris Brav
I find the characterisations of Snowden as a cypherpunk and an idealist
rather surprising. No cypherpunk whom I know would work for the NSA in
the first place, and wouldn't someone who underwent a conversion to
cypherpunkery while working at the NSA simply dump the information
publicly rather than give it to curators? As for idealism, it seems to me
that Snowden has argued rather for principled realism with respect to the
balance of personal privacy and state security. Many serious people who
have worked for the NSA have argued that mass surveillance is an enormous
drain on resources and that if surveillance were targeted and regulated,
there would be both more privacy and more state security. But maybe they
are wrong and there will always be a ruthless arms race between those who
want privacy and those who want authority. In that sense perhaps
Snowden's position is idealistic, but it is a rather moderate kind of
idealism.
I agree.
It's hard for me to see Snowden as a simple-hearted fellow after taking
cursory look on the facts available about him, let alone a more detailed one
like this:
100 Words
NEW!
@Chris Brav
I find the characterisations of Snowden as a cypherpunk and an idealist
rather surprising. No cypherpunk whom I know would work for the NSA in
the first place, and wouldn't someone who underwent a conversion to
cypherpunkery while working at the NSA simply dump the information
publicly rather than give it to curators? As for idealism, it seems to me
that Snowden has argued rather for principled realism with respect to the
balance of personal privacy and state security. Many serious people who
have worked for the NSA have argued that mass surveillance is an enormous
drain on resources and that if surveillance were targeted and regulated,
there would be both more privacy and more state security. But maybe they
are wrong and there will always be a ruthless arms race between those who
want privacy and those who want authority. In that sense perhaps
Snowden's position is idealistic, but it is a rather moderate kind of
idealism.
Well you're right, to some extent, Snowden is far far less advanced on the
cypherpunk spectrum than, say, Assange/Wikileaks.
I think it's pretty clear that at the outset Snowden was a 'Murica patriot.
He then got disillusioned, and instead of going up the chain of command (what a
fully conventional person would have done), or even leaking to the NYT, he
instead leaked to people very strongly associated with Wikileaks (Greenwald,
Poitras), whose antagonistic relationship with the US elites was already well
established.
In that sense perhaps Snowden's position is idealistic, but it is a
rather moderate kind of idealism.
It's hard for me to see Snowden as a simple-hearted fellow after taking
cursory look on the facts available about him, let alone a more detailed
one like this:
While questioning Snowden's story is a perfectly reasonable thing to do
(some of it is indeed questionable), I'm rather wary of the kinds of
speculations that are made in the above links, since I can imagine plenty of
reasons that Snowden might not be completely straightforward about his work
with the CIA
But I meant that on the hypothesis that whatever he has said in public about
mass surveillance has been said in good faith, then it seems that he is trying
to occupy some middle ground (or to sit on the fence, depending where you are
coming from).
From amazon review of his book
In the Jaws of the Dragon "Anyone who has read "The World is Flat" should also read "In The
Jaws Of The Dragon" to understand both sides of the issues involved in offshoring. Eamon Fingleton clearly
defines the differences between the economic systems in play in China and Japan and the United States
and how those differences have damaged the United States economy. The naive position taken by both the
Republicans and the Democrats that offshoring is good for America is shown to be wrong because of a
fundamental lack of knowledge about who we are dealing with. Every member of Congress and the executive
branch should read this book before ratifying any more trade agreements. The old saying of the marketplace
applies: Take advantage of me once, shame on you. Take advantage of me twice, shame on me."
Notable quotes:
"... Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed their views to be shaped largely by the American press. ..."
"... That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism. ..."
"... In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. ..."
"... As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than the press makes out. ..."
"... So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability. ..."
"... In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." ..."
"... other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes from fed-up middle Americans. ..."
"... In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital evidence in the Kovaleski affair. ..."
Battlefield communications in World War I sometimes left something to be desired. Hence a famous
British anecdote of a garbled word-of-mouth message. As transmitted, the message ran, "Send reinforcements,
we are going to advance." Superior officers at the other end, however, were puzzled to be told: "Send
three and four-pence [three shillings and four-pence], we are going to a dance!"
Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for
Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed
their views to be shaped largely by the American press.
That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and
reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies
even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's
almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003.
Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are
viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that
he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone
remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades
in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter
Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism.
Now as Trump embarks on office, his true attitudes are becoming obvious – and they hardly lean
towards neo-Nazism.
In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's
husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken
partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's
highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. Trump even wants to move the American embassy
in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This position is a favourite of the most ardently pro-Israel
section of the American Jewish community but is otherwise disavowed as insensitive to Palestinians
by most American policy analysts.
Many other examples could be cited of how the press has distorted the truth. It is interesting
to revisit in particular the allegation that Trump mocked a disabled man's disability. It is an allegation
which has received particular prominence in the press in Europe. But is Trump really such a heartless
ogre? Hardly.
As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than
the press makes out. The disabled-man episode began when, in defending an erstwhile widely ridiculed
contention that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed
a 2001 newspaper account broadly backed him up. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred.
Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he wrote, was an exaggeration.
Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking
reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had succumbed to political correctness.
So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no
ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are
malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York
real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they
could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability.
Trump's plea that he hadn't known that Kovaleski was handicapped was undermined when it emerged
that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower.
That is an experience I know something about. I, like Kovaleski, once interviewed Trump in Trump
Tower. The occasion was an article I wrote for Forbes magazine in 1982. If Trump saw my by-line today,
would he remember that occasion 35 years ago? Probably not. The truth is that Trump, who has been
a celebrity since his early twenties, has been interviewed by thousands of journalists over the years.
A journalist would have to be seriously conceited – or be driven by a hidden agenda – to assume that
a VIP as busy as Trump would remember an occasion half a lifetime ago.
In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump
offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart;
number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many
of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies
his tough-guy exterior), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. In effect Trump is
saying he had a strong self-interest in not offending the disabled lobby let alone their millions
of sympathisers.
After all it was not as if there were votes in dissing the disabled. This stands in marked contrast
to other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans
and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central
pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes
from fed-up middle Americans.
In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital
evidence in the Kovaleski affair.
For a start Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to arthrogryposis. Far from frantically
flailing their arms, arthrogryposis victims are uncommonly motionlessness. This is because relevant
bones are fused together. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the media should have been expected to
have been chomping at the bit to interview Kovaleski and thus clinch the point about how ruthlessly
Trump had ridiculed a disabled man's disability.
The website added: "If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have
done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have
no story."
Catholics 4 Trump added that, in the same speech in which Trump did his Kovaleski impression,
he offered an almost identical performance to illustrate the embarrassment of a U.S. general with
whom he had clashed. In particular Trump had the general wildly flailing his arms. It goes without
saying that this general does not suffer from arthogryposis or any other disability. The common thread
in each case was merely an embarrassed, backtracking person. To say the least, commentators in Europe
who have portrayed Trump as having mocked Kovaleski's disability stand accused of superficial, slanted
reporting.
All this is not to suggest that Trump does not come to the presidency unencumbered with baggage.
He is exceptionally crude – at least he is in his latter-day reality TV manifestation (the Trump
I remember from my interview in 1982 was a model of restraint by comparison and in particular never
used any expletives). Moreover the latter-day Trump habit of picking Twitter fights with those who
criticize him tends merely to confirm a widespread belief that he is petty and thin-skinned.
Many of his pronouncements moreover have been disturbing and his abrasive manner will clearly
prove on balance a liability in the White House. That said, the press has never worked harder or
more dishonestly to destroy a modern American leader.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, therefore, as he sets out to make America great again.
The truth is that American decline has gone much further than almost anyone outside American industry
understands. Trump's task is a daunting one.
Eamonn
Fingleton is an expert on America's trade problems and is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries:
Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity (Houghton Mifflin,
Boston). A version of this article appeared in the Dublin Ireland Sunday Business Post.
America's fate looks dicey in the showdown with the Chinese juggernaut, warns this vigorous jeremiad.
Fingleton (In Praise of Hard Industries) argues that China's "East Asian" development model of aggressive
mercantilism and a state-directed economy "effortlessly outperforms" America's fecklessly individualistic
capitalism
Am nteresting thought (replace imperialism with neoliberalism) : "I think that it is possible
that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from
being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most
self-defeating feature. "
Revival of far right in Europe also is connected with the crisis of neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to. ..."
"... I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. ..."
"... I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. ..."
"... Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe. ..."
"... Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal ..."
"... Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. ..."
"... All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears. ..."
Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering
all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the
Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position
to take action. The other good news is
Trump's inauguration speech which included this historical promise " We do not seek to impose
our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow ".
Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking
the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary
Clinton been elected.
The other interesting feature of Trump's speech is that it centered heavily on people power and
on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater.
Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-billionaire capitalist be trusted
when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at
least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that "
imperialism
is the highest stage of capitalism " and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to
suddenly renounce imperialism.
But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.
For one thing, let's begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the
immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years
of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum
decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the AngloZionist
Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence
of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which
the USA find themselves today that brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people
(Hillary's "deplorables") to "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American
plutocracy, "great again". This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to
simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the
Neocons always try to.
I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis
and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption
of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because
whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear
confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion
that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions
of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning
from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is
21 st
Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was
so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism"
is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects
like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did
sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You
could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like
Putin too?
There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling
his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings
words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the
understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the
Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and
Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly
what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people
first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.
All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected
you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill
will sound like music to the Russian ears.
Then there are Trump's words about " forming new alliances " and uniting " the civilized
world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the
Earth ". They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA
is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh,
then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police
and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for " completely eradicating Radical
Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth " for decades.
There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited
only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire
planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a
direct result from the "tepid war" the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just
like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started
by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon's messianic ideology. Now that a realist like
Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.
The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an
alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because
he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon
crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong
desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial
national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree
upon is much, much longer than the number of issues were irreconcilable differences remain.
So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is "for real",
and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies.
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal
enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like
David Horowitz declaring
himself a supporter of Donald Trump ,
I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?". What is
certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that
this shall not be me.
Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon?
Well, another author here, David Chibo, seems to think that the intent is exactly the opposite:
for the US (the nation) to become World Hegemon. As opposed to what we have today, to
multinational capital being World Hegemon
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased
by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago .and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to
save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a
new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save
the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new
course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
It is so important to us all.
Guess you didn't watch the debate where Trump said there is a very large bubble over wall street,
and its bigger than the housing bubble (my words not Trumps) and our GDP the figures the government
puts out as David Stockman Reagan budget director said is very suspect to say the least, for I
have seen it stated anywhere from $16 trillion to $18 trillion and change much like the BLS report
I suspect.
Not much wiggle room for Trump a crashing bubble on wall street almost 100,000,000 un-employed
per the Lay-Off-List, no that fails to jibe with the figure the government puts out, much like
the GDP I suspect, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the debt will grow under
Trump as he re-builds the military, as more tax dollars are flushed down the drain to keep company
with the trillions already there.
Chalmers Johnson was right in his excellent books from Blowback to The Sorrows of Empire Militarism,Secrecy,and
the End of the Republic and our 900+ bases around the globe, can Trump change that close at least
half of those bases that cost us billions of dollars we don't have or will it be the status quo
I suspect it will be the later
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by
seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
Anonymous:
I can back up Horowitz being termed "a rapid maniac". Some time ago I met him at one of his
book signings. At that time I would be regarded as one of his disciples, i.e. his camp followers.
That changed once I actually met him. His eyes were those of a crazed man. Enough said!
"After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.
All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected
you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and
goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."
But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
And that's what it's all about.
Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.
The problem is that the issues between Russia and US are not that easy to resolve. For example,
will US keep the "anti-Iran" missile defense systems in East Europe? Will they continue to state
that Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO? Will the recent NATO troops in Poland, Baltic states
and Romania stay? There are a few others, like the Ukraine problem – Crimea, Donbass, economic
collapse.
None of those issues are suitable for a deal. A deal requires things that either side can let
go. We don't have that here. Most likely the tensions will recede, some summits will be held,
a few common policies will be attempted (e.g. Middle East), but none of the really big issues
(missiles, NATO expansion, Crimea, Ukraine) will be addressed. US has gone too far down that road
to backtrack now – it is all logistics at this point. And logistics don't change short of something
like a war.
So we are stuck. But at least we are no longer heading towards a catastrophe.
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save
the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new
course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
It is so important to us all.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job
to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart
a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
That's an interesting point, the US does have creditors and it has reached its credit limit,
and hasn't exactly been making good investments with the money that was borrowed.
The real issues seem to be making spending efficient (for example US healthcare that costs
about 2x the Canadian rate per person for the same result), and rebasing production in the US
(more US taxpayers).
The Socialist UK government was in a similar position in the early 1970′s with a "welfare state"
that it couldn't afford, general industrial strife and a "class war". When the UK's creditors
saw that things weren't going to change they sold off government bonds and the country got the
"Sterling Crisis" with Sterling losing what was left of its Reserve Currency status.
At least Trump is indicating a political will for change, but he needs to act quickly.
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by
seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
I listened to Trump's speech live on headphones while power walking on a country road. Something
about that scenario allowed me to give it a focus that I may not have had if I was watching it
on the idiot box or reading a transcript.
If I'm not mistaken, he literally called most of his esteemed guests ( ex-presidents especially)
corrupt criminals, frauds and traitors. An unbelievable moment where the mob was reminded that
politicians are not to be fawned over. They work for the people.
The rest of the speech of course was lyrics for a remake of the song 'Dream the Impossible
Dream'. But still, if the population wasn't attention deficit affected, that part of his speech
could have been right up there with Ike's MIC moment.
This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning
from past mistakes? Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief
that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically
zilch to do with imperialism?
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common:
their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs
like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned
and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike "
renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country
(the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of
respect.
@Chet Roman "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy,
"great again"
While I am hopeful and will give Trump the chance to prove himself. Unfortunately, he like Obama
before him, has appointed most the same plutocrats/neoliberal parasites in his administration
that are part of what the Saker calls the "AngloZionist Empire". Will they, like the patrician
FDR, promote policies against their own class interests? Time will tell but, after the same betrayal
by "Hope and Change" Obama I would not bet on it.
Not that I'm very sanguine about all the Goldman Sachs people in Trump's cabinet either, but
if you're looking for reasons for optimism: At least Trump–unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama–hasn't
appointed any retreads; i.e., people who've served in previous cabinets. That may indicate that
some change is in the offing. Let's hope it's a change for the best.
The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP ..Our GDP should
ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not . it's bad news.
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T) it is such bad news our big media has
refused to discuss it ..The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.
The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because
it makes them accountable.
The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.
Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over
two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back
in the plus column.
Do you want to know how ?
He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people
, our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there .and he has chosen to recognize
this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry
and the values that make us who we are ..
He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act
of deception , so that it may never happen again.
Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire
oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .
Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls
and seizes all their assets .If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .
then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars
If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt .then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio
is right back in the" plus column" .
Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same ..the new ratio is 17.1 T
Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.
Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".
Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the
good people who would never "lie us into war".
This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care
of business at home, and clean house when necessary.
This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as
they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.
Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?
300 Words
@Anon "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent
to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who
elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship
and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."
But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
And that's what it's all about.
Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.
"Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism."
That seems to be true.
I was shocked to read a letter in the current London Review of Books, actually a rebuttal to another
letter, by Adam Tooze. Tooze had written a review of a book by Wolfgang Streeck. In his rebuttal
Tooze attacked Streeck as an anti-Semite because Streeck had *dared* to write a book that presents
arguments for the primacy of the nation-state as opposed to globalist forces. Tooze's argument
basically came down to: nation-state = chauvinism = anti-Semitism, where globalization = "Semitism,"
I suppose, and Tooze actually more or less accused Streeck of anti-Semitism on this basis: that
you cannot defend the idea of the nation-state without being in effectively anti-Semitic. He didn't
show any other evidence but just this supposed syllogism, all of it theoretical. Interestingly
Tooze was the one making the equation of globalism and Jews-not Streeck! But still, Streeck was
the guilty one. Tooze spent a lot of breath on the word "Volk" for "people." Of coure, Streeck
in German, and that is the German word for "people." Any other overtones "Volk" has acquired in
English are the fault of the English, as English has its own second word, "folk," which German
does not, and so English speakers didn't have to take over the German word and demonize it. They
could have demonized their own word . . . Tooze's pedantry and intellectual sloppiness were quite
startling. I look forward to seeing a rebuttal and maybe counterattack from Streeck in the next
LRB . . .
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)
These are bad news, but the news which are even worse is the fact that of these 18.7 Trillion
of nominal GDP, probably third (most likely more) is a virtual GDP–the result of cooking of books
and of financial and real estate machinations. Trump knows this, I am almost 99% positive, even
99.9%, on that.
This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from
past mistakes?... Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief
that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically
zilch to do with imperialism?
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their
internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like
David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and
I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike "
renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country
(the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of
respect.
" one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far
more dangerous than any external foe. "
"Make America Great Again"- is just an empty political slogan like bait on a fishing hook that
only dumb fish would be attracted to.
I suggest readers look at an article by Andrew Levine, a very insightful Jewish American political
commentator and regular contributor to Counterpunch.
"the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from
the face of the Earth".
What has ISIS done to America or Trump that he should want to totally obliterate them? Before
you denounce or pronounce me as dumb heretical dissenter, read on.
Sunni Arabs in the Middle East have been exploited and controlled by racially arrogant European
interlopers and colonists since the fall of the Ottomans. They have been especially mistreated
and ravaged by vengeful Americans since 2001. They also facilitated a revival of Shia-Sunni sectarian
conflict in Syria and Iraq. Now the displaced and persecuted Sunni minority want to form their
own state, free from foreign interference to practice their chosen religion and way of life. I
grant you that they are also vengeful and violent to those who persecuted them by using terrorist
methods and that they practiced "ethnic cleansing" but that does not make them "uncivilized",
the civilized Americans and Europeans did the same when conquering their settler colonies. So
why not let them have their own land, just like the Jewish Europeans were given and make peace
with time provided they renounce their goal of spreading Wahhabi Muslim empire by force?
The Arab states which emerged after the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate were not meant
to be replaced by an Arab Caliphate. The fight of the Sunnis is not the fight of a 'persecuted'
minority, but of the former dominant minority for the re-establishment of their dominant position
in the frame of the Caliphate, with wet dreams of world domination. ISIS is but the tip of the
iceberg. Their eradication would cool down the overheated minds of the Caliphate dreamers.
The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP.....Our GDP should
ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not.... it's bad news.
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)...it is such bad news our big media has
refused to discuss it .....The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.
The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it
makes them accountable.
The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.
Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two
trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in
the plus column.
Do you want to know how ?
He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our
country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there....and he has chosen to recognize
this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry
and the values that make us who we are.....
He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of
deception , so that it may never happen again.
Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs
who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .
Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and
seizes all their assets....If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .......
then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars
If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt....then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio
is right back in the" plus column" ....
Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same .....the new ratio is 17.1 T
Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.
Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".
Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good
people who would never "lie us into war".
This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care
of business at home, and clean house when necessary.
This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they
would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.
Would you do it ?.....If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?
Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability
Not to speak for Anna, but maybe I would – if blessed with balls of titanium, or perhaps by
underestimating the capacity of the deep state to slice them off. Being human, one can only hope
that Trump will do what I cannot, or could not in his shoes.
One thing he cannot do is feign ignorance or pretend to be unaware of the critters festering
in the swamp – after all, he campaigned on the promise of draining it. Where hope falters is in
seeing the cabinet he is building with characters unlikely to do much in the swamp-draining department.
Without a strong cadre of testicular fortitude surrounding him in his cabinet, his most sincere
attempts at swamp-drainage will be quixotic at best.
So, where does one place hope lest one becomes a blathering cynic or a nattering nabob of negativity?
Ego -- That is where my chips are stacked. Nothing defines or motivates Trump more than
his self-perception. I believe that it is much more than showmanship that propels his self-promotion,
and nothing would be more devastating to the man than to be ridiculed or perceived as a failure.
I doubt that Netanyahu could do to him what he did to Obama and survive the retaliatory deluge
that would follow. I think Trump's hidden strength is his desire for vengeance against those that
wrong him (I expect there to be tribulations in HRC's future). If the deep state doesn't do him
in first, there is the strong possibility of damage on the deep state – one that they may never
recover from in this world of instant information that wilts night-flowers.
He may redefine victory on occasion for outcomes that are too difficult for him to accept,
but in the end, he will "Make Trump Great Again," and if fortune favors us, help the US benefit
in the process, if not the rest of the world.
That does not rule out that his naiveté may cause him to stumble and fall, perhaps more than
once, and he has not always succeeded in business, but it seems that he does build on his failures,
and is unlikely to make the same mistake twice.
Doesn't appear like a lot to cling to, but in this dystopic world, it is the best we have.
Is it enough?
"... In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass
immigration and military intervention abroad. ..."
"... Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance
of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors
rather than potential voters, never appreciated. ..."
"... The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. ..."
"... Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. ..."
"... It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on
Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the
symptom than the cause of division. ..."
"... Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American
Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and
alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible
and may no longer exist. ..."
"... Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia ..."
"... But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the
terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained.
They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them
real contenders for power. ..."
"... One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars,
something that is now at last becoming feasible. ..."
In the US, Europe and the Middle East there were many who saw themselves as the losers from globalisation,
but the ideological vehicle for protest differed markedly from region to region. In Europe and
the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military
intervention abroad. The latter theme is much more resonant in the US than in Europe because
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three
buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking
their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated.
The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. This is a big change from 50 years ago when revolutionaries in the
region were usually nationalists or socialists, but both beliefs were discredited by corrupt and
authoritarian nationalist dictators and by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. When Isis
forces were advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul in June 2014, it was a fatwa from the Iraqi Shia
religious leader Ali al-Sistani that rallied the resistance. No non-religious Iraqi leader could
have successfully appealed to hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer to fight to the death
against Isis. The Middle East differs also from Europe and the US because states are more fragile
than they look and once destroyed prove impossible to recreate. This was a lesson that the foreign
policy establishments in Washington, London and Paris failed to take on board after the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, though the disastrous outcome of successful or attempted regime change has been
bloodily demonstrated again and again. It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the
troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian
leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division.
But it is not only in the Middle East that divisions are deepening. Whatever happens in Britain
because of the Brexit vote or in the US because of the election of Trump as president, both countries
will be more divided and therefore weaker than before. Political divisions in the US are probably
greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity
in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the
dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist.
The mainline mass media is finding it difficult to make sense of a new world order which may or
may not be emerging. Journalists are generally more rooted in the established order of things than
they pretend and are shocked by radical change. Only two big newspapers – the Florida Times-Union
and the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump before the election and few of the American
commentariat expected him to win, though this has not dented their confidence in their own judgement.
Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia, but there is also genuine uncertainty
about whether he will be a real force for change, be it good or ill.
Crises in different parts of the world are beginning to cross-infect and exacerbate each other.
Prior to 2014 European leaders, whatever their humanitarian protestations, did not care much what
happened in Iraq and Syria. But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading
for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle
East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian
nationalist right and made them real contenders for power.
The Middle East is always a source of instability in the world and never more so than over the
last six years. But winners and losers are emerging in Syria where Assad is succeeding with Russian
and Iranian help, while in Iraq the Baghdad government backed by US airpower is slowly fighting its
way into Mosul. Isis probably has more fight in it than its many enemies want to believe, but is
surely on the road to ultimate defeat. One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far
he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible.
"... A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people. ..."
"... I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing. ..."
"... For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world. ..."
"... I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you? ..."
"... Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China. ..."
Nah, Reagan was tragedy, this one is farce.
A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy,
proclaiming its will to represent the people.
Has anyone noticed the creepy banner CNN is using for their coverage? Two general's stars on
a red ribbon? I was struck by it, so I went to CNN's archive to see what they did for the last
two inaugurations. I couldn't find anything like it.
And of course there is the story that his
team wanted a military vehicle parade, e.g. Tanks, mobile missile launchers, etc. How long before
the Don dons a uniform?
I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find
amusing.
kidneystones 01.21.17 at 12:23 am
What I told my own first-year students yesterday:
For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see
the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to
2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy.
Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of
America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world.
I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking
office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary
wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin
supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want
a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you?
Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing
countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.
We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a
president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China.
He's not interested in what goes on in other people's countries. He wants to mind his own business.
He wants to get rich and become as famous as possible. We don't know what will happen, but for
the first time in a very long time Americans have elected a president who does not want to attack
other countries.
We are not looking at a new US war in the Middle East for the first time in a very long time.
That doesn't mean the war won't happen. Americans love bombing people. But I'm immensely pleased
Hillary Clinton is not fighting more wars in the Middle East, and that for the first time in a
very long time Americans seem to have decided to leave the rest of us live our lives in peace.
"... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
"... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
"... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful
transfer of political power. This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps
banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me proud to be an American and thankful we had
such brilliant founding fathers.
This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain
and Canada, where leaders under the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife
fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its three branches of government in spite
of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.
Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy
headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse
by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on
a collision course.
Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass
drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria.
This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan
and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion
military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents
insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'
Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his
ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup
to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations is a multi-billion dollar national
industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.
If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have
to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their
primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not
to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused
by what he called in his inaugural speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted
by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing.
The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.
Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation
of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on
western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions
in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.
Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround
him, with the possibly exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and
not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.
(Reprinted from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
Trust mainstream media commentators to get their priorities right! While they dished out hell
to Donald Trump the other day over his 10-minute conversation with the president of Taiwan, they
could hardly have been more accommodative all these years of a rather more consequential American
affront to mainland China: Barack Obama's so-called "pivot" to Asia.
As the London-based journalist John Pilger points out, the absurdly named pivot, which has been
a central feature of U.S. foreign policy since 2012, is clearly intended to tighten America's military
containment of the Middle Kingdom. In Pilger's words, Washington's nuclear bases amount to a hangman's
noose around China's neck.
Pilger makes the point in a searing new documentary, The Coming War on China. Little known in
the United States, Pilger has been a marquee name in British journalism since the 1960s. First as
a roving reporter for the
Daily Mirror
and later as a television documentary maker, he has
spent more than fifty years exposing the underside of American foreign policy – and very often, given
London's predilection to play Tonto to Washington's Lone Ranger, that has meant exposing the underside
of British foreign policy also.
Pilger built his early reputation on opposition to the Vietnam war; more recently he emerged as
a scathing critic of the Bush-Blair rush to invade Iraq after 9/11.
In his latest movie, Pilger, a 77-year-old Australian, argues that the "pivot" sets the world
up for nuclear Armageddon. The Obama White House probably disagrees; but, not for the first time,
Pilger is asking the right questions.
This is not to suggest that Washington doesn't have legitimate issues. But its China strategy
is upside down. While it rarely misses an opportunity to lord it over Beijing militarily, its economic
policy in the face of increasingly outrageous Chinese provocation could hardly be more spineless.
Instead of insisting that China honor its WTO obligations, U.S. policymakers have looked the other
way as Beijing has not only maintained high trade barriers against American exports but, far worse,
has contrived to force the transfer of much of what is left of America's once awe-inspiring reservoir
of world-beating manufacturing technologies.
In the case of the auto industry, for instance, Beijing's proposition goes like this: "We'd love
to buy American cars. But those cars must be made in China – and the Detroit companies must bring
their best manufacturing technologies." Such technologies then have a habit of migrating rapidly
to rising Chinese rivals.
By indulging China economically and provoking it militarily, the Obama administration would appear
to be schizoid. But this is to judge things from a commonsensical outsider's perspective – always
a mistake in a place as inbred and smug as Washington. Seen from inside the Beltway, everything looks
perfectly rational. Whether Washington is giving away the U.S. industrial base, on the one hand or
arming to the teeth against a putative Chinese bogeyman on the other, the dynamic is the same: lobbying
money.
As the U.S. industrial base has been shipped machine-by-machine, and job-by-job, to China, America's
ability to pay its way in the world has correspondingly imploded. Although rarely mentioned in the
press (does the American press even understand such elementary and obvious economic consequences?),
this means America has become ever more dependent on other nations to fund its trade deficits. The
funding comes mainly in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. And guess who is the biggest
buyer? The Communist regime in Beijing, of course. In effect, the bemused Chinese are paying for
the privilege of having nukes pointed at them!
That is not a sustainable situation. Beijing no doubt has a plan. Washington, tone-deaf as always
in foreign affairs, has not yet discovered there is a problem. We have been fated to live in interesting
times.
Pilger's documentary will air in the United States on RT on December 9, 10, and 11. For details
click
here
.
Eamonn Fingleton is the author of
In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming
Era of Chinese Hegemony
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 2008).
"... Trump may end their expert preparedness for unending war. ..."
"... Neolib/neocon conartists call their truthful detractors unready or ignorant of unpatriotic or Russian tools. Sore
losers. Does not make war mongers right! ..."
Let me try. First of all, it is properly called non-interventionism and as such it is the opposing theory to neoconservatism,
especially its Allbright-Kagan-Nuland troika flavor, which actually does not deviate much from so called liberal interventionists
(Vishy left) such as Hillary-Samantha Power-Susan Rice troika.
It would be nice to put them on trial, because all of then fall under Nuremberg statute for war crimes. But this is
a pipe dream in the current USA political climate with it unhinged militarism and jingoism.
Here is something that more or less resembles the definition
Americans have grown understandably weary of foreign entanglements over the last 12 years of open-ended warfare, and
they are now more receptive to a noninterventionist message than they have been in decades. According to a recent Pew
survey, 52 percent of Americans now prefer that the U.S. "mind its own business in international affairs," which represents
the most support for a restrained and modest foreign policy in the last 50 years. That presents a challenge and an opportunity
for noninterventionists to articulate a coherent and positive case for what a foreign policy of peace and prudence would
mean in practice. As useful and necessary as critiquing dangerous ideas may be, noninterventionism will remain a marginal,
dissenting position in policymaking unless its advocates explain in detail how their alternative foreign policy would
be conducted.
A noninterventionist foreign policy would first of all require a moratorium on new foreign entanglements and commitments
for the foreseeable future. A careful reevaluation of where the U.S. has vital interests at stake would follow. There
are relatively few places where the U.S. has truly vital concerns that directly affect our security and prosperity, and
the ambition and scale of our foreign policy should reflect that.
A noninterventionist U.S. would conduct itself like a normal country without pretensions to global "leadership" or
the temptation of a proselytizing mission. This is a foreign policy more in line with what the American people will accept
and less likely to provoke violent resentment from overseas, and it is therefore more sustainable and affordable over
the long term.
When a conflict or dispute erupts somewhere, unless it directly threatens the security of America or our treaty allies,
the assumption should be that it is not the business of the U.S. government to take a leading role in resolving it.
If a government requests aid in the event of a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis (e.g., famine, disease), as
Haiti did following its devastating earthquake in 2010, the U.S. can and should lend assistance - but as a general rule
the U.S. should not seek to interfere in other nations' domestic circumstances.
Note the female chickenhawks are the most bloodthirsty, overdoing even such chauvinists as McCain.
That actually has its analogy in animal kingdom were female predators are more vicious killers then male, hunting
the prey even if they do not feel the hunger (noted especially for lions)
"So there you have it: ... completely unprepared to govern."
Paul means to imply the Obama boys and girls were better prepared? Judging by how well they did, maneuvering us into
Larry's secular stagnation, for instance, some may be forgiven to think perhaps that kind of expertise we could do without.
Lost in all the discourse is that this government of ours was designed to be operated by amateurs.
Neolib/neocon conartists call their truthful detractors unready or ignorant of unpatriotic or Russian tools. Sore
losers. Does not make war mongers right!
"... Ron Paul went out with a bang in 2008. He refused to endorse the neocon who won the nomination and instead brought together candidates from the "minor" parties to agree on a basic set of principles upon which this Institute was founded in 2013. It was an excellent parting shot. The McCainiacs in their arrogance bade good riddance to the anti-interventionist wing of the party and...the rest is history (as it was four years later). Did they learn? Of course not. ..."
"... So at that time, in 2008, Ron Paul became the steady voice of the non-interventionist movement even as much of the anti-Bush "peace movement" faded into silence hoping that Obama would live up to his Nobel Peace Prize billing. Instead, Obama bombed his way through his final year in the White House as he did the preceding seven years: he dropped an average of three bombs per hour in 2016. That's three per hour, each 24 hours, each 52 weeks, each 12 months. With some admirable exceptions, the Left side of the peace movement went into hibernation for eight years. ..."
"... President Obama is going out with a bang, but of an entirely different sort. After he and his surrogates all but accused President-elect Trump of being a Kremlin agent -- bolstered by the "fake news" experts at the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media -- he made a couple of moves in attempt to bind his successor to a confrontational stance regarding Russia. ..."
"... In today's Liberty Report , Dr. Paul and I mentioned the famous April, 1967 antiwar speech of Martin Luther King where he blasted the superficial patriotism of those who cheer the state's wars without question. ..."
"... We are in the same situation today, where anyone who questions the neocon and mainstream media narrative that to oppose a nuclear confrontation with Russia makes one somehow a Russian agent. ..."
It seems strange that this will be the last time I write you under the presidency of Barack Obama.
I recall the slight ray of hope we felt when he took office, after eight years of the crazed neocons
who ran Bush's White House. At the time, Dr. Paul had just finished his ground-breaking 2008 presidential
run and so much had changed for us in the Congressional office. While we were legally separated from
campaign activities, we felt the mist from the waves crashing on the shore of American political
life. Ron Paul went from being a widely-admired and principled Member of Congress to the world-renowned
ambassador of honest money and non-interventionism! A revolution was born!
By the 2008 race, Bush and his foreign policy were thoroughly discredited, and Ron Paul offered the
strongest opposition to the warmed-over Bushism that the hapless McCain campaign had on offer. Obama
had run as the peace candidate, and the peace candidate always wins -- even if he is a liar (see:
Woodrow Wilson, FDR, GW Bush, etc.). But while many of us hoped for the best, we also knew there
was little chance for us to change course.
Ron Paul went out with a bang in 2008. He refused to endorse the neocon who won the nomination and
instead
brought together candidates from the "minor" parties to agree on a basic
set of principles upon which this Institute was founded in 2013. It was an excellent parting
shot. The McCainiacs in their arrogance bade good riddance to the anti-interventionist wing of the
party and...the rest is history (as it was four years later). Did they learn? Of course not.
So at that time, in 2008, Ron Paul became the steady voice of the non-interventionist movement even
as much of the anti-Bush "peace movement" faded into silence hoping that Obama would live up to his
Nobel Peace Prize billing. Instead, Obama bombed his way through his final year in the White House
as he did the preceding seven years: he dropped an average of
three bombs per hour in 2016. That's three per hour, each 24 hours, each 52 weeks, each
12 months. With some admirable exceptions, the Left side of the peace movement went into hibernation
for eight years.
President Obama is going out with a bang, but of an entirely different sort. After he and his
surrogates all but accused President-elect Trump of being a Kremlin agent -- bolstered by the "fake
news" experts at the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media -- he made a couple of
moves in attempt to bind his successor to a confrontational stance regarding Russia.
First, he sent thousands of
US troops to permanently be stationed in Poland for the first time ever. These troops and military
equipment, including hundreds of tanks and so on, are literally on the border with Russia, but any
complaint or counter-move is reported by the lapdog media as "Russian aggression." Imagine five thousand
Chinese troops with the latest in war-making equipment on the Mexican border with the US, with a
few ships in the Gulf of Mexico to boot. Would Washington welcome such a move? Then today we discover
that Obama has
sent a few hundred US Marines to take up in Norway for the first time since World War II. Of
course it's not enough to be a military threat to Russia nor is it enough to actually defend Norway
if "Russian expansionism" dictates an invasion. So what is the purpose? To wrong-foot any ideas Trump
might have about turning down the nuclear-war-with-Russia dial.
Ron Paul will continue his position as the Trump Administration takes hold of the levers of power:
He continues to push honest money, individual liberties, and non-interventionism. Do you agree that
we must not compromise this position no matter who is in power?
In today's
Liberty Report , Dr. Paul and I mentioned the famous April, 1967 antiwar speech of Martin Luther
King where he blasted the superficial patriotism of those who cheer the state's wars without question.
We are in the same situation today, where anyone who questions the neocon and mainstream media
narrative that to oppose a nuclear confrontation with Russia makes one somehow a Russian agent.
And Obama's big miss while he still had the chance? Just a few days ago the media
reported that whistleblower Chelsea Manning was on the shortlist for having her 35 year sentence
commuted. Imagine decades in solitary confinement for the "crime" of telling your fellow citizens
the crimes being committed by their government.
As the news that Manning was being considered for presidential clemency broke, Dr. Paul joined
with RPI Board Member former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to
send an urgent letter to President Obama to request that Manning's sentence be commuted. This
quick action of the Ron Paul Institute was coordinated with Amnesty International and represents
a new, more activist phase for us. With our collective following in the millions, we can mobilize
opinion quickly on urgent matters such as this. Obama has not yet responded, but you can be sure
that our call to action was well-heard in Washington.
... ... ...
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Better dead than bad: Status competition among German
fighter pilots during World War II
By Philipp Ager, Leonardo Bursztyn, and Joachim Voth
During World War II, the German military publicly
celebrated the performance of its flying aces to incentivise
their peers. This column uses newly collected data to show
that, when a former colleague got recognition, flying aces
performed much better without taking more risks, while
average pilots did only slightly better but got themselves
killed much more often. Overall the incentives may have been
detrimental, which serves as a caution to those offering
incentives to today's financial risk-takers.
Reply
Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Yossarian came to him one mission later and pleaded again,
without any real expectation of success, to be grounded. Doc
Daneeka snickered once and was soon immersed in problems of
his own, which included Chief White Halfoat, who had been
challenging him all that morning to Indian wrestle, and
Yossarian, who decided right then and there to go crazy.
'You're wasting your time,' Doc Daneeka was forced to tell
him.
'Can't you ground someone who's crazy?'
'Oh, sure. I have to. There's a rule saying I have to
ground anyone who's crazy.'
'Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger.'
'Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger and
I'll ask him.'
'Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I
am.'
'They're crazy.'
'Then why don't you ground them?'
'Why don't they ask me to ground them?'
'Because they're crazy, that's why.'
'Of course they're crazy,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'I just
told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't let crazy
people decide whether you're crazy or not, can you?'
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another
approach. 'Is Orr crazy?'
'He sure is,' Doc Daneeka said.
'Can you ground him?'
'I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of
the rule.'
'Then why doesn't he ask you to?'
'Because he's crazy,' Doc Daneeka said. 'He has to be
crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close
calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to
ask me to.'
'That's all he has to do to be grounded?'
'That's all. Let him ask me.'
'And then you can ground him?' Yossarian asked.
'No. Then I can't ground him.'
'You mean there's a catch?'
'Sure there's a catch,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'Catch-22.
Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really
crazy.'
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which
specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of
dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a
rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he
had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer
be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be
crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy
and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and
had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute
simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a
respectful whistle.
'Catch-22': Cadets Hail a Chronicler of the Absurd
By ANDREW H. MALCOLM
COLORADO SPRINGS
It was love at first sight.
The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw
Joseph Heller walk into the cavernous auditorium. they fell
madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as
one to applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin
a weekend-long celebration.
The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication
of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured the insanity of war
and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English
language....
Reply
Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 05:39 PM
'CATCH-22': CADETS HAIL A CHRONICLER OF THE ABSURD
Section B; Page 10, Column 3; National Desk
Byline: By ANDREW H. MALCOLM, Special to the New York Times COLORADO SPRINGS, Oct. 4 Lead:
It was love at first sight.
The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw Joseph Heller walk into the
cavernous auditorium. they fell madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as one to
applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin a weekend-long celebration.
The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured
the insanity of war and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English language.
Text:
The audience in blue uniforms rose again to applaud and cheer when the author introduced the movie
based on his book. The cadets applauded during the movie credits, after the movie and after he thought
he was finished answering questions.
Then they mobbed him down front with more questions, asked for autographs and followed him out
to a waiting car for more talk about the evil Colonel Cathcart, who kept raising the number of bombing
missions necessary for rotation home, Major Major, who would only see people in his office when he
wasn't in, and Milo Minderbinder, the mess officer who could see a profit in almost anything. 'An
Intoxicating Experience'
''For me,' said the 63-year-old author, ''this is an intoxicating experience unlike any other
I've ever had. I don't want to take it in stride. I want to revel in it.''
As part of the celebration, there was a 25th birthday cake for Yossarian, the book's puzzled protagonist.
There were academic papers presented on the theological, cultural and social significance of ''Catch-22.''
And there were big smiles on the faces of the Air Force Academy's English department, which sought
to introduce the man who made fun of an insane military bureaucracy to future members of a military
bureaucracy.
''We want these men and women to be a thinking part of a large military bureaucracy,'' said Col.
Jack Shuttleworth, head of the English department, ''We don't want them to be victims of the Colonel
Cathcarts of the world. To put it bluntly, you don't want dumb officers out there protecting your
country.''
Since its publication, ''Catch-22'' has been an informal part of the military education of many
soldiers. And it was occasionally used in some senior classes here. But in recent years it has become
a staple taught by a self-confident staff of teachers whose military experiences included tours in
Vietnam, where the historical distinctions between good guy and bad guy were fuzzed and, as Colonel
Shuttleworth put it, ''The enemy was everywhere and nowhere.'' Mutual Admiration Builds
''We oversimplify our military,'' said Mr. Heller, who as a World War II bombardier lieutenant
flew 60 missions in the Army Air Corps. ''We think they have one mind. But they are very educated
today and they want their families and students to be well educated. The degree of acceptance here,
maybe even love, for the book is very surprising, and gratifying.''
Likewise, the cadets learned that an Olympian author can also be accessible. ''He seems like a
nice guy,'' said Corey Keppler, a sophomore from Smithtown, L.I., ''I read parts of the book in high
school. Now I'm going to finish it.''
Mr. Heller also shared several confidences with his young admirers, none of whom was born when
he wrote the book. They learned that the book was originally titled ''Catch-18,'' but the imminent
publication of Leon Uris's ''Mila 18'' and the repetition of the number two in Mr. Heller's book
suggested the change.
The cadets also discovered that Milo's car in the movie really did belong to Mussolini. They laughed
when the author told why he sold the movie rights: ''I wanted the money.'' A Catch That Defies Explanation
And the author tried once again to explain why he can never define catch-22. ''It doesn't exist,''
he said, ''That's the catch. If it existed in writing or something, we could change it.''
Then he sought to give an example. ''I understand the Air Force Academy has a catch-22,'' he said,
''To repair a uniform it must be freshly cleaned. But the cleaning staff has orders not to clean
any uniform needing repairs.''
''That's some catch,'' says Yossarian in the movie.
''It's the best there is,'' replies the doctor.
There were, of course, serious moments in the celebration, which the academy advertised with a
sketch of a naked Yossarian in a tree looking out over the Air Force school. In one paper presented,
Stuart James of Denver University praised the book's ''narrative knots and sheer fantasy'' as ''a
mirror image of the madhouse world of lonely psyches that we all inhabit.'' Joan Robertson of the
academy's faculty analyzed the author's depiction of women in ''Catch-22'' as undemanding, compliant,
often not even worthy of a proper name, and thus adding a needed gritty edge to his portrayal of
men.
Frederick Kiley of the National Defense University even wrote another chapter to ''Catch-22''
in Mr. Heller's style about the brave young men who went off on the dangerous missions they did not
have to fly but could not get out of. 'I'm Sure Milo Would'
The author himself said he was surprised by the lasting impact of Milo Minderbinder, a product
of the capitalist system. ''I don't understand the merger mania sweeping American business,'' said
Mr. Heller. ''But I'm sure Milo would.''
The author said he was not surprised, however, when catch-22's kept popping up in real life. In
a speech tonight he quoted one United States Army briefing officer in Vietnam telling reporters,
''I'm happy to announce our casualties have increased greatly and are now on a level with those of
our Marines.''
Mr. Heller said he was stunned with the strength of continuing interest in his book. He confided
plans to cancel the Friday evening showing of the movie if only a few teachers attended. Instead,
it was the largest crowd he has ever addressed.
All of which put the author in his own catch-22 - the more he enjoyed the weekend, the faster
it went, and the less he could enjoy it.
''I'm as happy as a lark,'' said Mr. Heller, who expects to complete his next novel, ''Poetics,''
this winter. ''All my fantasies have been fulfilled. The sad part to me is that now I'll have to
wait another 25 years to come back.''
Let us 'ally' with all the world,
let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us
squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too
steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs
bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.
I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's
Vietnam Speech:
War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not
know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend
$500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only
fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and
much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people
that are not poor."
I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground
in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when
protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the
draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada
and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from
her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had
already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the
truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured
Doctor King would understand.
"... Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded. ..."
"... The neo in neoliberalism, however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate profits, and challenging welfarism. ..."
"... But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education, and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits. ..."
"... A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded; indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . ..."
"... consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses, and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. ..."
"... The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market. ..."
There is nothing common between articles of Zingales and Schiller.
My impression is that Schiller might lost his calling: he might achieve even greater success
as a diplomat, if he took this career. He managed to tell something important about incompatibility
of [the slogan] "Make America Great Again" with neoliberalism without offending anybody. Which
is a pretty difficult thing to do.
Zingalles is just another Friedman-style market fundamentalist. Nothing new and nothing interesting.
Noah Smith is wrong here: "This idea is important because it meant that we shouldn't expect fiscal
stimulus to have much of an effect. Government checks are a temporary form of income, so Friedman's
theory predicts that it won't change spending patterns, as advocates such as John Maynard Keynes
believed."
Friedman's view about consumption demand is the same as the Life Cycle Model (Ando and Modligiani).
OK - these models do predict that tax rebates should not affect consumption. And yes there are
households who are borrower constrained so these rebates do impact their consumption.
But this is not the only form of fiscal stimulus. Infrastructure investment would increase
aggregate demand even under the Friedman view of consumption. This would hold even under the Barro-Ricardian
version of this theory. OK - John Cochrane is too stupid to know this. And I see Noah in his rush
to bash Milton Friedman has made the same mistake as Cochrane.
What Friedman got wrong is not including current income. People with high income spend a fraction
of that income and save the rest. Their demand is met, so the additional income mostly goes to
savings.
People with low income spend everything and still have unmet demands. Additional income for
them will go to meet those unmet demands (like fixing a toothache or replacing bald tires).
Friedman was biased against fiscal intervention in an economy and sought evidence to argue
against such policies
Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are
most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded.
Federal infrastructure funding destroyed city neighborhoods leaving the neighboring areas degraded.
Meanwhile, necessary projects such as a new subway tunnel from NJ to Manhattan are blocked by
States who are ok if the city fails and growth moves to their side of the river.
Money should go directly to the cities. Infrastructure should be build to serve the people
who live, walk and work there, not to allow cars to drive through at high speeds as the engineers
propose. This infrastructure harms cities and becomes a future tax liability that cannot be met
if the built infrastructure it encourages is not valuable enough to support maintenance.
We are discovering that unlike our cities where structures can increase in value, strip malls
decline in value, often to worthlessness. Road building is increasingly mechanized and provides
less employment per project than in the past. Projects such as replacing leaking water pipes require
more labor.
Simon Wren Lewis leaves open the possibility that an increase in aggregate demand can increase
real GDP as we may not be at full employment (I'd change that from "may not be" to "are not")
but still comes out against tax cuts for the rich with this:
"There is a very strong case for more public sector investment on numerous grounds. But that
investment should go to where it is most needed and where it will be of most social benefit"
Re: Milton Friedman's Cherished Theory Is Laid to Rest - Bloomberg View
Friedman was not simply wrong. The key for understanding Friedman is that he was a political
hack, not a scientist.
His main achievement was creation (partially for money invested in him and Mont Pelerin Society
by financial oligarchy) of what is now called "neoliberal rationality": a pervert view of the
world, economics and social processes that now still dominates in the USA and most of Western
Europe. It is also a new mode of "govermentability".
Governmentality is distinguished from earlier forms of rule, in which national wealth is measured
as the size of territory or the personal fortune of the sovereign, by the recognition that national
economic well-being is tied to the rational management of the national population. Foucault defined
governmentality as:
"the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, the calculations
and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which
has as its target population, as its principle form of knowledge political economy and as its
technical means, apparatuses of security"
A liberal political order may harbor either liberal or Keynesian economic policies -- it
may lean in the direction of maximizing liberty (its politically "conservative" tilt) or of
maximizing equality (its politically "liberal" tilt), but in contemporary political parlance,
it is no more or less a liberal democracy because of one leaning or the other.
Indeed, the American convention of referring to advocates of the welfare state as political
liberals is especially peculiar, given that American conservatives generally hew more closely
to both the classical economic and the political doctrines of liberalism -- it turns the meaning
of liberalism in the direction of liberality rather than liberty.
For our purposes, what is crucial is that the liberalism in what has come to be called neoliberalism
refers to liberalism's economic variant, recuperating selected pre-Keynesian assumptions about
the generation of wealth and its distribution, rather than to liberalism as a political doctrine,
as a set of political institutions, or as political practices. The neo in neoliberalism,
however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those
set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply
a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate
profits, and challenging welfarism.
Rather, neoliberalism carries a social analysis that, when deployed as a form of
governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices
of empire. Neoliberal rationality, while foregrounding the market, is not only or even primarily
focused on the economy; it involves extending and disseminating market values to all institutions
and social action, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player.
... ... ...
1. The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence,
is submitted to an economic rationality; or, put the other way around, not only is the human
being configured exhaustively as homo economicus, but all dimensions of human life are cast
in terms of a market rationality. While this entails submitting every action and policy
to considerations of profitability, equally important is the production of all human and institutional
action as rational entrepreneurial action, conducted according to a calculus of utility, benefit,
or satisfaction against a microeconomic grid of scarcity, supply and demand, and moral value-neutrality.
Neoliberalism does not simply assume that all aspects of social, cultural, and political life
can be reduced to such a calculus; rather, it develops institutional practices and rewards
for enacting this vision. That is, through discourse and policy promulgating its criteria,
neoliberalism produces rational actors and imposes a market rationale for decision making in
all spheres.
Importantly, then, neoliberalism involves a normative rather than ontological claim about
the pervasiveness of economic rationality and it advocates the institution building, policies,
and discourse development appropriate to such a claim. Neoliberalism is a constructivist project:
it does not presume the ontological givenness of a thoroughgoing economic rationality for all
domains of society but rather takes as its task the development, dissemination, and institutionalization
of such a rationality. This point is further developed in (2) below.
2. In contrast with the notorious laissez-faire and human propensity to "truck and barter"
stressed by classical economic liberalism, neoliberalism does not conceive of either the market
itself or rational economic behavior as purely natural. Both are constructed-organized
by law and political institutions, and requiring political intervention and orchestration.
Far from flourishing when left alone, the economy must be directed, buttressed, and protected
by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed to facilitate competition,
free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and institution of society.
In Lemke's account, "In the Ordo-liberal scheme, the market does not amount to a natural
economic reality, with intrinsic laws that the art of government must bear in mind and respect;
instead, the market can be constituted and kept alive only by dint of political interventions.
. . . [C]ompetition, too, is not a natural fact. . . . [T]his fundamental economic mechanism
can function only if support is forthcoming to bolster a series of conditions, and adherence
to the latter must consistently be guaranteed by legal measures" (193).
The neoliberal formulation of the state and especially of specific legal arrangements and decisions
as the precondition and ongoing condition of the market does not mean that the market is controlled
by the state but precisely the opposite. The market is the organizing and regulative principle
of the state and society, along three different lines:
The state openly responds to needs of the market, whether through monetary and fiscal
policy, immigration policy, the treatment of criminals, or the structure of public education.
In so doing, the state is no longer encumbered by the danger of incurring the legitimation
deficits predicted by 1970s social theorists and political economists such as Nicos Poulantzas,
Jürgen Habermas, and James O'Connor.6 Rather, neoliberal rationality extended to the state
itself indexes the state's success according to its ability to sustain and foster the market
and ties state legitimacy to such success. This is a new form of legitimation, one that
"founds a state," according to Lemke, and contrasts with the Hegelian and French revolutionary
notion of the constitutional state as the emergent universal representative of the people.
As Lemke describes Foucault's account of Ordo-liberal thinking, "economic liberty produces
the legitimacy for a form of sovereignty limited to guaranteeing economic activity . . .
a state that was no longer defined in terms of an historical mission but legitimated itself
with reference to economic growth" (196).
The state itself is enfolded and animated by market rationality: that is, not simply
profitability but a generalized calculation of cost and benefit becomes the measure of all
state practices. Political discourse on all matters is framed in entrepreneurial terms;
the state must not simply concern itself with the market but think and behave like a market
actor across all of its functions, including law. 7
Putting (a) and (b) together, the health and growth of the economy is the basis of
state legitimacy, both because the state is forthrightly responsible for the health of the
economy and because of the economic rationality to which state practices have been submitted.
Thus, "It's the economy, stupid" becomes more than a campaign slogan; rather, it expresses
the principle of the state's legitimacy and the basis for state action-from constitutional
adjudication and campaign finance reform to welfare and education policy to foreign policy,
including warfare and the organization of "homeland security."
3. The extension of economic rationality to formerly noneconomic domains and institutions
reaches individual conduct, or, more precisely, prescribes the citizen-subject of a neoliberal
order. Whereas classical liberalism articulated a distinction, and at times even a tension,
among the criteria for individual moral, associational, and economic actions (hence the striking
differences in tone, subject matter, and even prescriptions between Adam Smith's Wealth of
Nations and his Theory of Moral Sentiments), neoliberalism normatively constructs and interpellates
individuals as entrepreneurial actors in every sphere of life.
It figures individuals as rational, calculating creatures whose moral autonomy is measured
by their capacity for "self-care"-the ability to provide for their own needs and service their
own ambitions. In making the individual fully responsible for her- or himself, neoliberalism
equates moral responsibility with rational action; it erases the discrepancy between economic
and moral behavior by configuring morality entirely as a matter of rational deliberation about
costs, benefits, and consequences.
But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally
calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action
no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education,
and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits.
Correspondingly, a "mismanaged life," the neoliberal appellation for failure to navigate
impediments to prosperity, becomes a new mode of depoliticizing social and economic powers
and at the same time reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity
and political complacency.
The model neoliberal citizen is one who strategizes for her- or himself among various social,
political, and economic options, not one who strives with others to alter or organize these
options. A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded;
indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather
a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . which is, of course, exactly how
voters are addressed in most American campaign discourse.8
Other evidence for progress in the development of such a citizenry is not far from hand:
consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting
to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses,
and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. 9
Or consider the way in which consequential moral lapses (of a sexual or criminal nature)
by politicians, business executives, or church and university administrators are so often apologized
for as "mistakes in judgment," implying that it was the calculation that was wrong, not the
act, actor, or rationale.
The state is not without a project in the making of the neoliberal subject. It attempts
to construct prudent subjects through policies that organize such prudence: this is the basis
of a range of welfare reforms such as workfare and single-parent penalties, changes in the
criminal code such as the "three strikes law," and educational voucher schemes.
Because neoliberalism casts rational action as a norm rather than an ontology, social policy
is the means by which the state produces subjects whose compass is set entirely by their rational
assessment of the costs and benefits of certain acts, whether those acts pertain to teen pregnancy,
tax fraud, or retirement planning. The neoliberal citizen is calculating rather than rule abiding,
a Benthamite rather than a Hobbesian.
The state is one of many sites framing the calculations leading to social behaviors that
keep costs low and productivity high. This mode of governmentality (techniques of governing
that exceed express state action and orchestrate the subject's conduct toward himor herself)
convenes a "free" subject who rationally deliberates about alternative courses of action, makes
choices, and bears responsibility for the consequences of these choices. In this way, Lemke
argues, "the state leads and controls subjects without being responsible for them"; as individual
"entrepreneurs" in every aspect of life, subjects become wholly responsible for their well-being
and citizenship is reduced to success in this entrepreneurship (201).
Neoliberal subjects are controlled through their freedom-not simply, as thinkers from the
Frankfurt School through Foucault have argued, because freedom within an order of domination
can be an instrument of that domination, but because of neoliberalism's moralization of the
consequences of this freedom. Such control also means that the withdrawal of the state from
certain domains, followed by the privatization of certain state functions, does not amount
to a dismantling of government but rather constitutes a technique of governing; indeed, it
is the signature technique of neoliberal governance, in which rational economic action suffused
throughout society replaces express state rule or provision.
Neoliberalism shifts "the regulatory competence of the state onto 'responsible,' 'rational'
individuals [with the aim of] encourag[ing] individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial
form" (Lemke, 202).
4. Finally, the suffusion of both the state and the subject with economic rationality
has the effect of radically transforming and narrowing the criteria for good social policy
vis-à-vis classical liberal democracy. Not only must social policy meet profitability tests,
incite and unblock competition, and produce rational subjects, it obeys the entrepreneurial
principle of "equal inequality for all" as it "multiples and expands entrepreneurial forms
with the body social" (Lemke, 195). This is the principle that links the neoliberal governmentalization
of the state with that of the social and the subject.
Taken together, the extension of economic rationality to all aspects of thought and activity,
the placement of the state in forthright and direct service to the economy, the rendering of
the state tout court as an enterprise organized by market rationality, the production of the
moral subject as an entrepreneurial subject, and the construction of social policy according
to these criteria might appear as a more intensive rather than fundamentally new form of the
saturation of social and political realms by capital. That is, the political rationality of
neoliberalism might be read as issuing from a stage of capitalism that simply underscores Marx's
argument that capital penetrates and transforms every aspect of life-remaking everything in
its image and reducing every value and activity to its cold rationale.
All that would be new here is the flagrant and relentless submission of the state and the
individual, the church and the university, morality, sex, marriage, and leisure practices to
this rationale. Or better, the only novelty would be the recently achieved hegemony of rational
choice theory in the human sciences, self-represented as an independent and objective branch
of knowledge rather than an expression of the dominance of capital. Another reading that would
figure neoliberalism as continuous with the past would theorize it through Weber's rationalization
thesis rather than Marx's argument about capital.
The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market.
Julio -> Libezkova...
I agree with this. But I think it's extraordinarily wordy, and fails to emphasize the deification
of private property which is at the root of it.
Brown - who I haven't read much of but like what I have - sounds a lot like Lasch.
Brown:
"The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market."
Lasch in Revolt of the Elites:
"... Individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent
understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except
those of the market.... The market tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist
with institutions that operate according to principles that are antithetical to itself: schools
and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify
itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way,
to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional
careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every
institution in its own image."
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.
