Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

National Security State as Racket on the Danger of Terrorism
Review of Literature

“Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton thievery, they search out across the seas. The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

Tacitus, Agricola
 

News Corporatism Recommended Links Did Obama order wiretaps of Trump conversations Neofascism Nation under attack meme
Neoliberal war on reality or the importance of controlling the narrative  Inverted Totalitarism The Deep State Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? Reconciling Human Rights With Total Surveillance Operation Gladio - Wikipedia
The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies History of American False Flag Operations False flag operations as an important part of demonization of the enemy strategy Mystery of Building 7 Collapse Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers Manchester attack vs Charlie Hebdo
Total Surveillance Media-Military-Industrial Complex The Grand Chessboard Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite Two Party System as Polyarchy Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few
Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State Facebook as Giant Database about Users Social Sites as intelligence collection tools Systematic Breach of Vienna Convention Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism The Iron Law of Oligarchy
American Exceptionalism New American Militarism Machiavellism   Humor Etc

"The greatest threat is that we shall become like those who seek to destroy us"

the legendary US diplomat George Kennan warned in 1947

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”


Ronal Reagan about a different crisis

Books have been written about President Eisenhower’s famous farewell warning in 1961 about the “military-industrial complex,” and what he described as its “unwarranted influence.” But an even greater leviathan today, one that the public knows little about, is the “intelligence-industrial complex.”

Michael Hirsh in

How America's Top Tech Companies
Created the Surveillance State )

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

- James Madison


Introduction

The National Security State is an ideology and practice of the USA elite, closely connected with the idea of the rule of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex, and especially three-letter agencies ("Trumanites" because of our 33rd president's role in founding the CIA, the modern Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Agency).  It is somewhat different from national socialist idea as it is married to neoliberalism and does not included the decisive influence of the state in economic sphere.

Under neoliberalism society has become increasingly militarized, meaning that as most aspects of the social-democratic state (New Deal state) are eliminated, a police state is rising in its place. All problems that in the past were seen as social problems, and hence required social solutions, now acquire police solutions.

Moreover intelligence services became Praetorian Guard of  neoliberal elite that is in power and that completely changed the nature of governance in the USA. Now there is a country within the country in the USA. It can be called "Classified America".  It has population of around 5 million people and controls the other 320 million. Almost 5 million people is more more then 1% of population. And now it become a formidable political force that strives to become a kingmaker. much like Praetorian Guard in ancient Role it is clearly out of control of elected government and has its own, sometimes nefarious agenda.  All-in-all this is the fastest growing part of media-military-industrial complex. 

In economic sphere deregulation (economic liberalism or neoliberalism) produce social conflict, which at some point can not be masked by neoliberal demagogy ("shareholder value", "stakeholder participation" and other neoliberal crap).  At some point it requires police methods of suppression of dissent. As the state now represents interest only of the top 0.1% population, economic and political spheres became merged under authoritarian rule of financial oligarchy, not unlike the USSR under bolshevism with the only difference that until 1970th "nomenklatura" was more aligned with the interests of the society then financial oligarchy. Later it became detached form that interest of lower 80% of population, adopted neoliberal ideology, became turncoats and facilitated dissolution of the USSR privatizing its wealth in the process. 

Under leoliberalism, which established itself in the USA since late 70th, tax laws, inheritance rules, status to trade unions, "revolving door" regulations (which highly correlates with the degree of corruption of the society) became political decisions favoring neoliberal elite at the expence of common sitizents. To hide this requires constant brainwashing of the population and instilling fear using external threat. that's where intelligence agancies come handy as they by-and-large control key journalists and key MSM. For example Washington Post for a long time was called "voice of CIA" even in the US establishment. 

Since 9/11 terrorism is used as a smoke screen to hide the warts of neoliberalism and facilitate the transition of state into nationa security state. Adoption of Patriot Act and resulting hypertrophied growth of intelligence agencies in the USA are just a tip of the iceberg. In reality the situation became pretty much Orwellian with Intelligence agencies as a ne Big Brother and   the war between Oceania (USA and NATO vassals) and Eurasia (Russia and China) in the Orwell's famous  novel 1984,  It is clear that the war with terrorism launched what can be called  "permanent war for permanent peace".  The level of rampant militarism in the USA now is close to what we observe in typical neo-fascist movements, especially under Trump (Fascism - Wikipedia ):

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[5][6] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[5][6]

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.[13]

Paradoxially intelligence agencies  and Pentagon can't live peacefully with each other and struggle for power. That why intelligence  agencies launched a color revolution against Trump, who can be viewed as the Presidential Candidate of Pentagon.  After coming to power Trump introduced several new measures which represent the idea of "national neoliberalism". He explicitly wants to use the power of the US to bully all nations. Those who behave against the USA wishes have sanction imposed and are threatened with war.

In this mutation of  neoliberalism as a social system US intelligence apparatus and military establishment are raised to the level above and beyond civilian control and become a somewhat autonomous system, a hidden government of the USA. The Deep state as it is now called. For example intelligence againces now strive and de facto achieved the role of king maker for the most top positions in the USA government. And, if necessary, can act as a king remover (JFK assassination is a nice example here; CIA fingerprints are all over the place, but nobody from CIA went to jail for this: "mission accomplished").

The colossal budget with  juicy cost-plus contracts of affiliated private companies gives intelligence agencies and Pentagon not only tremendous power, but also create vested ideological and financial interests. Wars became necessary for maintaining the level of those budgets. Existence of the "country-scapegoat" is important too for projecting on it all evil that happens within the USA under neoliberalism and blowbacks from neoliberal foreign policy. For example, for the moment of its creation, due to Allen Dulles background CIA was aligned with the interests of Wall Street.

There no real overseeing of three letter agencies from neither executive branch, not from the Congress, nor from the Supreme Court. But the reverse is not true. In a way they now strive to serve as a surrogate king.  In other words, instead of the servant of the state intelligence agencies became the master. Tail wags the dog.  This phenomenon is not limited to the USA. The same hijacking of executive, parliamentarian and judicial braches of govern happened in other countries. A very interesting example provides the USSR: it was actually betrayal of KGB brass, who switched side and decided to privatize the country, that was the key factor tthat led to the dissolution of the USSR.

The key "three letter agencies" (CIA, DOD, NSA, FBI) were established by the National Security Act of 1947, signed in September 18, 1947 by President Harry S. Truman. This year can be considered as the year when National Security State was born and probably should be celebrated accordingly instead of old-fashioned Independence Day.  Very little was preserved from the "old republic" after this transformation of the USA. 

It is prudent to view National Security State as a modern form of corporatism, closely related to concepts of neo-fascism and Inverted Totalitarism. As ellatynemouth noted in the comment to the Guardian article Internet privacy as important as human rights, says UN's Navi Pillay (Dec 26, 2013):

The surveillance state is the ruling class's key hole through which they monitor us and our potential dissent. It's now an integral part of capitalism and can't be removed.

The game has changed. It's now about convincing us as much as possible that they will stop snooping on us. They won't though. It will just become more heavily hidden.

Surveillance state was made possible with the advent of computers, Internet and wireless communication. In some features it is close to neo-fascism and Latin-American far right authoritarian regimes, but there are important difference. Instead of organized violence against opponents it achieved its goals without relentless physical repression/elimination of opponents. It's key feature is mass surveillance, discreditation and blackmailing of opponents (like in German Democratic Republic there are dossier for every member of society and skeletons from the closet can be revealed for any politician or activist)  as well as control and manipulation of media, not mass repression of opponents. Like neofascist regimes of the past (such as Pinochet regime in Chile) and authoritarian "communist" regimes of the past and present, it make organized opposition to the government virtually impossible. Of the 20 characteristic traits of neo-fascist regimes probably around a half are applicable to the national security state.

After 9/11, Bush government's behavior and especially appeals to public clearly resonate with the proto-fascist "... uber alles" ideas ("America is an exceptional nation"). As an amazing example of doublespeak  Bushists managed to integrate American exceptionalism into the framework of globalist neoliberal regime (as the command-and-control center for neoliberal world empire, no less).

Bush government inspired post-9/11 paranoia doesn’t come cheaply, though. Costs were staggering: the military ($682 billion), Homeland Security (about $60 billion), and 15 intelligence agencies (official figure of combined budget is perhaps $75 billion; but in reality more then that). The total is probably over a trillion.

Nothing changed under President Obama, which suggests that he is just a figurehead and the  "deep state" is actually in charge. In most areas the Obama administration was more like Bush II administration, with "change we can believe in" as a smokescreen for nefarious actions. Obama launched more wars then Bush II too.  In this sense this was the most blatant and the most successful  "bait and switch" in the recent  political history of the USA.  Later is lightly different form repeated with Trump, who  also during election campaign proposed reasonable steps of improving standard of living of the US population and finishing forign wars, but instance switched sides after election pushing neoliberal policies at home, and continuing all Bush-Obama wars foreign wars abroad.  He also appointed open war hawks into his administration. The list of neocons in Trumps administration is as long as in Bush II administration and includes people in key positions such as Haley, Bolton, and Pompeo.

This is the view of Professor Michel Greenon, who in his book advocated the view that tradition troika of powers in the USA became by and large ceremonial and that real actors, at least in area of national security are not non-elected executives of super-powerful and well financed three-letter agencies. Here is a brief overview taken from review published by Reason (National Security State - Reason.com):

Though Glennon doesn't describe his thesis in terms of public choice theory, it echoes that discipline's insight that institutions are run for the benefit of the people who run the institutions. For the Trumanites, Glennon explains, "benefits take the form of enlarged budgets, personnel, missions; costs take the form of retrenchments in each." Witness the vast archipelago of intelligence facilities-nearly three Pentagons' worth of office space-that have been erected in greater Washington, D.C., since 9/11.

The national security state is becoming an autonomous, self-perpetuating entity, Glennon warns. It sets the table for elected officials' choices and increasingly dictates terms to them. The permanent bureaucracy basks in the "glow" of Madisonian institutions, drawing legitimacy from the illusion that elected officials are in charge. But while the buck may stop with the president, the real power resides with the Trumanites.

This explanation is strongest in the realm of state surveillance, which serves as Glennon's central case study. Recall the embarrassing revelation, in the summer of 2013, that the NSA was tapping German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone. What did the president know, and when did he know it? If you believe top administration officials, Obama was almost as surprised as Merkel. Glennon quotes Secretary of State John Kerry to the effect that the Merkel wiretap, like a lot of NSA programs, occurred "on autopilot."

On one hand, that's what you'd expect them to say. On the other hand, the claim is entirely plausible, and it is consistent with the earlier history of NSA abuses uncovered by the Church Committee in the 1970s. Under Project SHAMROCK, for example, the NSA collected the content of virtually all cable traffic entering or leaving the United States for three decades-150,000 messages a month at its height. It was, the committee's final report concluded, "probably the largest governmental interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken." And yet it's not clear that any president ordered, approved, or was even aware of SHAMROCK. When the program's existence was exposed in the mid-'70s, Louis Tordella, longtime deputy director of the NSA, admitted that he didn't know whether any president or attorney general had ever been briefed on it.

The picture grows somewhat more complicated when we look at the modern practice of presidential war making. From the Truman administration onward, the president has accumulated enormous unchecked authority, despite James Madison's conviction that, since the executive department was "most distinguished by its propensity to war," it is "the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence."

When it comes to picking the wars we wage, it's not clear that the Trumanites are fully in charge. Take four major war-powers decisions during the Obama administration: the Afghan surge, the escalation of drone attacks, the Libya intervention, and the current war against ISIS. I put the Trumanite win-loss record at roughly .500 here. The military and national security bureaucracy fought hard for the surge and the drone escalation, and got them. They generally opposed the Libyan action, and some prominent Trumanites-such as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs -appear to have been reluctant to endorse our latest war in the Middle East.

In the case of this most recent war, domestic politics seems a better explanation: The president yielded to the near-irresistible demand that he "do something" about the beheading of Americans and the implosion of the Iraqi state. Bombing ISIS is something, so we're doing it.

The Obama experience suggests we get the wars the Trumanites want -- and also some they don't. But this is hardly fatal to Glennon's thesis. He stresses that "a good theory of institutional behavior can predict, at best, only tendency over time"; his "predicts only that national security policy will change little from one administration to the next." So far, that theory is holding up rather well.

Even so, I've always been partial to one version of the "government politics" explanation. A few years ago, I wrote a book arguing that "Americans' unconfined conception of presidential responsibility is the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties." If the political reality is such that the president will be held personally accountable for any domestic terror attack, don't be surprised when he seeks powers nearly as vast as the expectations put upon him.

Glennon acknowledges it's not either-or; "explanations overlap," he writes. Dumb wars and security-state overreach are the result of political choices and the bureaucratic imperative. Policy continuity is depressingly overdetermined.

Real-time histories of key national security decisions in the Obama years tend to underscore this point. In Kill or Capture, reporter Daniel Klaidman describes the enormous political pressure the Obama administration was under after the failed "underwear bomber" attack on December 25, 2009. "For the White House," Klaidman writes, "the psychic toll of Christmas Day was profound. Obama realized that if a failed terror attempt could suck up so much political oxygen, a successful attack would absolutely devastate his presidency. And much as he liked to talk about returning to first principles, Obama also had a powerful instinct for self-correction-as well as self-preservation."

The psychic aftershock of Christmas 2009 helped shape a lot of what followed: from body scanners at airports to ramped-up drone strikes to the lethal targeting of an American citizen.

But to Glennon's point, the administration was under pressure from the Trumanites well before that. In the 2012 book, The Obamians: The Struggle Inside the White House to Redefine American Power, James Mann describes a concerted effort by then-CIA director Michael Hayden and other senior intelligence officials to preserve business as usual by scaring the hell out of the incoming Obama team. Their private name for this scheme was the "Aw, Shit! Campaign."

The scare tactics worked. Klaidman reports that both Harold Koh, legal advisor at the State Department, and Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel, used the same metaphor to describe the military pressure for more targeted killings: a runaway train. It was like "a massive freight train hurling down the tracks" Koh said. "You would have to throw yourself on the tracks to try to stop it," said Johnson.

All this helps shed light on Obama's strange and disorienting May 2013 "drone speech" at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., in which the president seemed to be speaking not as commander in chief, but as his own loyal opposition.

In the speech, Obama said things like "Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers." And: "The very precision of drone strikes can also lead a president and his team to view [them] as a cure-all for terrorism." I remember thinking: "A president"? Which one? Anyone in particular? Who's in charge here, anyway?

National Security and Double Government suggests that the answer to that last question isn't quite so obvious, that the "most powerful man in the world" isn't nearly as powerful as he might appear.

It remains the case that Obama had the formal authority to say no to mass surveillance and perpetual war. But saying no would require resisting enormous bureaucratic and political pressure. And anybody willing to do what it takes to become president is unlikely to transform himself into a self-denying Cincinnatus once in office. Political survivors don't jump in front of trains.

While US government spent around $3.67 trillion in 2013, the revenue was just $2.77 trillion. Of that amount over one trillion went to three-letter agencies and DOD. Now you understand to whom real power belongs.  Moreover the government has to borrow about $900 billion in order to maintain national security state programs intact. And there are 5 million (yes million) people in the USA with security clearance and around 3 million with top security clearance. In other words "Welcome to the USSR." or even Third Reich (actually republican senators opposed Truman initiative due to fear that he replicated institution of the Third Reich in the USA and only support of powerful Democrats allowed the president to push the act through the Congress.

But even if it was close to the Third Reich in political effects and its essence, this type of political structure is different, because it does not rely on mass mobilization. Instead it relied on the power of "deep state" and mass surveillance as well as passivity of most electorate. 

As Paxton describes it (Tracking Fascism) fascism as just hypertrophied and misguided nationalism, a specific flavor of far right nationalism. The central emotions in fascism and nationalism are identical. In other words at the core of fascist emotional mobilization always lies far right nationalism and that is important distinction with national security state and neoliberalism which are globalist and  "imperial" and does not stress particular nationality as long of the person/group serves empire interests:

...Feelings propel fascism more than thought does. We might call them mobilizing passions, since they function in fascist movements to recruit followers and in fascist regimes to "weld" the fascist "tribe" to its leader. The following mobilizing passions are present in fascisms, though they may sometimes be articulated only implicitly:
  1. The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual.
  2. The belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group's enemies, internal as well as external.
  3. Dread of the group's decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan liberalism.
  4. Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.
  5. An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem.
  6. Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny.
  7. The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle.

Post 9/11  "passions" in the USA were definitely skillfully used by Bush administration to push the nation into the Iraq war and the attacks on dissenters that occurred during it were pretty vicious, really in traditions of Third Reich ("you are either with us, or with our enemies"). 

But public was not really central in this whole issue. Americans were extras at best, patsies at worst,  Essentially all major decisions were made "behind the curtain" by deep state structures and public was just brainwashed into approval of those action. That's an important different between national security state and classical fascist regimes. In classic fascist state the leading fascist party would be central to unleashing such a war.  Here it was bust a bunch of highly placed bureaucrats in Bush II administration (so called neocons, which is an ideological group allied with the military industrial complex, but not an organized party as such).

Here is a more extended treatment of this issue (cited from Rush, Newspeak and Fascism An exegesis IV Tracking Fascism):

1. [Group primacy]: See, again, the Bush Doctrine. An extension of this sentiment is at play among those jingoes who argue that Americans may need to sacrifice some of their civil rights -- say, free speech -- during wartime.
2. [Victim mentality]: This meme is clearly present in all the appeals to the victims of Sept. 11 as justifications for the war. It is present at nearly all levels of the debate: from the White House, from the media, even from the jingoist entertainment industry (see, e.g., the lyric of Darryl Worley's extraordinarily popular country-western hit, "Have You Forgotten?": "Some say this country's just out looking for a fight / Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right.").
3. [Dread of liberal decadence]: This meme has been stock in trade of the talk-radio crowd since at least 1994 -- at one time it focused primarily on the person of Bill Clinton -- and has reached ferocious levels during the runup to the war and after it, during which antiwar leftists have regularly and remorselessly been accused of treason.
4. [Group integration] and 5. [Group identity as personal validation] are, of course, among the primary purposes of the campaign to demonize liberals -- to simultaneously build a cohesive brotherhood of like-minded "conservatives" who might not agree on the details but are united in their loathing of all things liberal. It plays out in such localized manifestations as the KVI Radio 570th On-Air Cavalry, which has made a habit of deliberately invading antiwar protests with the express purpose of disrupting them and breaking them up. Sometimes, as they did recently in Bellingham, this is done with caravans of big trucks blaring their horns; and they are also accompanied by threatening rhetoric and acts of physical intimidation. They haven't yet bonded in violence -- someone did phone in a threat to sniper-shoot protesters -- but they are rapidly headed in that direction.
6. [Authority of leaders]: This needs hardly any further explanation, except to note that George W. Bush is actually surprisingly uncharismatic for someone who inspires as much rabid loyalty as he does. But then, that is part of the purpose of Bush's PR campaign stressing that he receives "divine guidance" -- it assures in his supporters' mind the notion that he is carrying out God's destiny for the nation, and for the conservative movement in particular.
7. [An aesthetic of violence]: One again needs only turn to the voluminous jingoes of Fox News or the jubilant warbloggers to find abundant examples of celebrations of the virtues -- many of them evidently aesthetic -- of the evidently just-completed war.

I would like to stress that similar processes occurred in different states after WWII as well (Latin America military dictatorships are one example). And with new force and on the new level after the dissolution of the USSR in Russia.  Of course the USSR was a National Security Surveillance State even before WWII, being one of the "pioneers" of this form of state along with Italy and Germany. But it was a rather "primitive" form of national security state  in a sense that it did not rely on computers, collecting "envelope" of all Internet communication, emails headers and other "meta-data" as well as systematic interception of SMS-based communications as well interception of wireless communication and financial operations via computerized banking (especially credit card transactions)  for surveillance.

Rule of Trumanites as the essence of the US National security state -- Boston Globe review of Michael Glennon book

Mickey Edwards, who served in Congress from 1977 to 1993, and is the author of “The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans.” published a very penetrating review of the book in  The Boston Globe. In which he stated:

It has long been the province of conspiracy theorists to claim that the real power of government is not wielded by the obvious practitioners of statecraft — presidents, members of Congress, the judiciary — but by secret or semi-secret entities, real wizards whose hidden machinations send us to war, sell us out to enemies, siphon public treasure into private hands. Depending on your talk show or paranoia of choice, these are the bankers, oil barons, one-worlders, war profiteers, Bilderbergers, Masons, Catholics, Jews, or Trilateralists. Our formal institutions, in this scenario, are stage sets, Potemkin villages; our officials are puppets; we are an unsuspecting audience.

Michael Glennon, a respected academic (Tufts’s FLETCHER SCHOOL) and author of a book brought to us by an equally respected publisher (Oxford University Press), is hardly the sort to indulge in such fantasies. And that makes the picture he paints in “National Security and Double Government” all the more arresting. Considering Barack Obama’s harsh pre-election criticisms of his predecessor’s surveillance policies, for example, Glennon notes that many of those same policies — and more of the same kind — were continued after Obama took office. “Why,” he asks, “does national security policy remain constant even when one President is replaced by another, who as a candidate repeatedly, forcefully, and eloquently promised fundamental changes in that policy?”

The answer Glennon places before us is not reassuring: “a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of US national security policy.” The result, he writes, is a system of dual institutions that have evolved “toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy.”

If this were a movie, it would soon become clear that some evil force, bent on consolidating power and undermining democratic governance, has surreptitiously tunneled into the under-structure of the nation. Not so. In fact, Glennon observes, this hyper-secret and difficult-to-control network arose in part as an attempt to head off just such an outcome. In the aftermath of World War II, with the Soviet Union a serious threat from abroad and a growing domestic concern about weakened civilian control over the military (in 1949, the Hoover Commission had warned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become “virtually a law unto themselves”), President Truman set out to create a separate national security structure.

By 2011, according to The Washington Post, there were 46 separate federal departments and agencies and 2,000 private companies engaged in classified national security operations with millions of employees and spending of roughly a trillion dollars a year. As Glennon points out, presidents get to name fewer than 250 political appointees among the Defense Department’s nearly 700,000 civilian employees, with hundreds more drawn from a national security bureaucracy that comprise “America’s Trumanite network” — in effect, on matters of national security, a second government.

Glennon’s book is not a breezy read: It’s thick with fact and not unappreciative of conundrum (“The government is seen increasingly by elements of the public as hiding what they ought to know, criminalizing what they ought to be able to do, and spying upon what ought to be private. The people are seen increasingly by the government as unable to comprehend the gravity of security threats.”). Nor is he glib with proposed solutions: to adequately respond to the threats posed by a below-the-radar second government will require “a general public possessed of civic virtue,” which prompts Glennon to cite retired Supreme Court justice David Souter’s bemoaning of a “pervasive civic ignorance.” Not all of the problem can be laid at Truman’s feet. And if we ourselves are part of the zeitgeist that allows invisible governments to flourish, repair will be difficult. As Glennon puts it, “the term Orwellian will have little meaning to a people who have never known anything different, who have scant knowledge of history, civics, or public affairs, and who in any event have never heard of George Orwell.”

This is no secret conspiracy nor a plot to deprive Americans of their civil liberties. It is the unintended consequence of a thoughtful attempt to head off the very threats that those attempts have inadvertently created. But if Glennon’s book is enlightening it is also scary. And it’s not fiction.

Why National Security State needs provocations -- pseudo terrorist attacks (false flag attacks)

There are multiple reasons such as to instill fear, and to demonstrate competence (Big Brother’s Liberal Friends — Crooked Timber)

Dr. Hilarius, 10.27.14 at 11:44 pm
An excellent analysis and summation.

Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task. Having lived through Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention many smaller governmental adventures) I see no evidence of competence. Instead, it’s repetitive failures of analysis and imagination no matter how much raw intelligence is gathered.

Nor is there any evidence that existing oversight mechanisms function as intended. Recent revelations about the CIA spying on the Senate should be enough to dispel the idea that leakers have no role to play.

Kinsley is particularly loathsome. His position is little more than “your betters know best” and that the state’s critics are guttersnipes needing to be kicked to the curb. Kinsley doesn’t need a coherent position, his goal is to be a spokesman for the better sorts, nothing more...

Tremendous push (or acceleration of pre-existing tendencies) toward National Security State occurred after 9/11 under the banner of fighting terrorism. At the point technological capabilities of mass surveillance using computers and the ability to have a dossier for everybody were in place, while mass deployment of PC, credit cards and cell phones provides constant stream of information to those dossiers, not that different from "gum shoes" reports. On November, 2001 the phone records of most Americans begin flowing to the N.S.A. After 9/11, President Bush authorizes the N.S.A. to collect phone and Internet content and metadata without a warrant. Within weeks, under the so-called President’s Surveillance Program (P.S.P.), the major telephone companies voluntarily hand over the data. The N.S.A. creates a twenty-four-hour “Metadata Analysis Center” (MAC) to search the phone records. In October 26, 2001: The Patriot Act is passed. Section 215 allows the government to seize “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”

At this point the process started with adoption of Truman doctrine came to a logical end: national surveillance state became a reality. Formally Truman Doctrine was created "to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." but in reality their function was more questionable and after 9/11 (some people date this event as early as 1963 -- JFK assassination) those activities created what is called "The State Within a State" similar to the USSR KGB role (see The State Within a State by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick). Here is one review of the book:

A Customer

passionate albeit muddled, August 24, 1999

I have problems with the author's obvious hatred of the Russian Revolution and Stalin and the way she claims there is an unbroken chain of horror going all the way back to 1917. Obviously things are better today -- hence her book! She says 66.7 million people died under "Chekist" rule since the Russian Revolution -- and then cites the Guiness Book of Records as her source!? No one could ever prove such a figure, I think its one of things that's repeated 'til it becomes fact.

I also find the author's lack of knowledge about our own CIA kind of disheartening. This fine organization has spread as much death and terror in the Third World (Indonesia, Guatemala,Chile, Argentina, Brazil etc. etc. ) as the KGB ever did anywhere, yet she seems to make them out to be benevolent compared to the KGB (which if you read this book are responsible for everything wrong with the world today).

After reading this book I still don't understand why she thinks the KGB or its incarnations are as bad today as they were at the height of the Terror in 1937. Its not really explained in the book. I still am not convinced that the KGB was the NKVD, and definitely convinced that either was the SS. Research I have done casually has never come up with hard, convincing figures for a Nazi style genocide in the USSR, and this anecdotal, unconvincing book didn't change my historical views.

See Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945-1954. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998; which "explains the transformative process that ended in the ultimate demise of the New Deal state with its emphasis on social spending and ushered in the militarist National Security State." From Amazon review:

Hogan, a specialist in American diplomatic and national security studies, has written a complex but interesting work on the emergence of the national security state. To create this state, it was necessary to merge the armed forces, the Defense Department, and scientists into a single unit to enhance the military's capabilities. To a large extent, this unification was accomplished in the 1950s. The driving forces were James Forrestal, Dean Acheson, and powerful members of Congress such as Carl Vinson (D-GA), who chaired the Committee on Naval Affairs, along with presidents Truman and Eisenhower.

Hogan presents a compelling case but overemphasizes the importance of Truman and Eisenhower while downplaying the role of Vinson and others in the security state's creation. In fact, both Truman and Eisenhower often seemed opposed to it but succumbed to pressure from Congress and key figures like Acheson. This extremely complex study, which deals with a subject few other books handle, is designed for scholars and informed lay readers interested in the creation of the "military-industrial complex." by Richard P. Hedlund, Ashland Community Coll., KY

Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti in his book "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History" noted:

"As I pointed out in the preface to The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence in 1974, democratic governments fighting totalitarian enemies run the risk of imitating their methods and thereby destroying democracy. By suppressing historical fact, and by manufacturing historical fiction, the CIA, with its obsessive secrecy and its vast resources, has posed a particular threat to the right of Americans to be informed for the present and future by an objective knowledge of the past.

As long as the CIA continues to manipulate history, historians of its activities must be Revisionist if we are to know the truth about the agency's activities, past and present."

Attempts to curtain the surveillance proved to by fruitless.  Church Committee was probably the most important "after JFK assassination" attempt to somewhat tame three latter agencies and especially CIA, but it ended in nothing.

Later NSA overtook CIA in many areas of intelligence gathering activities. Which create internal frictions between two agencies. State Department also "infringed" in CIA role in foreign countries and, for example, in organization of neoliberal color revolutions in oil rich or strategically important countries it is difficult to tell when clandestine actions of State Department ends and clandestine actions of CIA stars and vice versa. 

In is interesting to note that even Senators feel threatened by this total surveillance system. In December 14, 2005 Senators Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Richard Durbin, and several colleagues sign a letter warning that Section 215 “would allow the government to obtain library, medical and gun records and other sensitive personal information” that “would allow government fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans.” They demand that the records requested should “have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy,” a requirement that would

protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance and ensure that government scrutiny is based on individualized suspicion, a fundamental principle of our legal system.

In March, 2006, the Patriot Act is reauthorized without the changes sought by Obama and others.

In his October 19, 2012 review of the book Saman Mohammadi (The Excavator) wrote:

The case could be made that the creation of the CIA and the National Security State in 1947 was necessary. But after sixty years of human rights abuses, systematic attacks on the constitution, false flag terror events, assassinations of political reformers, and other horrible crimes against humanity, should not the CIA be reformed?

Let's put the question of morality aside. What are the "national security" reasons that legitimize the existence of the CIA? Once you learn that Al-Qaeda is a CIA creation and proxy insurgent army and that 9/11 was a massive false flag operation, you come to the natural conclusion that the CIA does not perform a national security role.

The CIA plays a much dirtier role: engineering the American mind. It is not denied that the shadow CIA has major influence in the mainstream media, especially amongst top newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. Michael S. Rozeff speculates that the New York Times is entirely run by the CIA.

We can't know for certain if that is true because of the lack of historical documentation in the public domain, but there is a mountain of observable evidence that proves the CIA has many of its spooks working for the New York Times. Go here for just one example.

Until the American people demand that the U.S. government commit to radical transparency and the principles enshrined in the U.S. constitution, the shadow CIA and the mainstream media can twist history and manage public perceptions of reality as much as they like.

The shadow CIA's greatest power comes from its command of the American public mind as well as its ability to create a fictional version of history. The false flag September 11 events was the shadow CIA's biggest media operation to date. It was their Mona Lisa. They painted the canvas of reality with the brush of myth, and worked day and night to shape the collective memory of the American people while the horror of the tragic attacks was still fresh in the nation's mind.

Although the shadow CIA doesn't have a total command of the American mind and of history, as proven by the rise of the global 9/11 truth and justice movement, it possesses enough media power to mold world public opinion and dictate government policy for the United States with ease. There is no question that its power is totalitarian in nature and its aims are evil. It does not serve the interests of the American people; that much is clear.

How can there be freedom when CIA officials in television studios, newspaper offices, and publishing companies drive the public conversation and form the national narrative on every issue of significance. The global alternative media is the only global civil society actor that is putting limits on the CIA's power to make up history and suppress the truth about historical events like 9/11 and the occult sacrifice of JFK.

In the past, the shadow CIA was presented with roadblocks in the Congress. But 9/11 fixed that problem. The laws and the politics changed. In "The Big Chill," author Dan Froomkin says the absence of Congressional leadership in the post-9/11 political universe has strengthened executive power. Here is an excerpt his article:

After past periods of executive excess, the Fourth Estate was certainly more robust and arguably more persistent, but it also found natural allies in the other branches of government—particularly Congress. By contrast, over the summer of 2012, the publication of a minimal amount of new information regarding drones, cyberwarfare and targeted killings incited bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill—not to conduct hearings into what had been revealed, but to demand criminal investigations into the leaking.

That's how Congress has been ever since the terrorist attacks 11 years ago. "We never got our post 9/11 Church Committee," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists's Project on Government Secrecy, referring to a special investigative Senate committee that held hearings on widespread intelligence abuses after the Watergate scandal. "What we've got instead is the intelligence oversight committee drafting legislation to penalize leaks."

Since the Congress is not willing to stand up for the rights of the American people, the truth, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution, then the American people and global civil society must stand up. Congress has no real power. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, Congress only has an eight percent approval rating. There are underground, neo-Nazi groups in Europe that are more popular than the Congress.

The mainstream media is no better. It is content with its role as a propaganda arm of the shadow CIA, and that is a tragedy. American newspapers have the power to improve their nation and change the world for the better, but instead they choose to cover up independent investigations of shady events like 9/11 that shed light on how the U.S. government really operates.

Alternative media outlets like Infowars.com, Veterans Today, Lew Rockwell.com, Washington's Blog, The Corbett Report, and countless others are doing the best they can to educate the American people and wake up humanity.

The last thing the shadow CIA wants to see is an informed and awakened America. It is waging a silent war on human consciousness because it is scared of an enlightened world. A world that is awake and aware of its crimes against humanity is its greatest nightmare.

If the shadow CIA has its way, it will continue inventing stories and passing it off as history with total immunity. But the global alternative media is telling the shadow CIA: Enough is enough, stop lying to the American people and the world.

The CIA's reckless disregard of U.S. traditions and laws made former President Harry Truman rethink his decision to create the CIA in the first place. On December 22, 1963, Truman wrote in The Washington Post:

For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.

On August 17, 1975 Senator Frank Church stated on NBC's Meet the Press without mentioning the name of the NSA about this agency (Wikipedia):

In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.[11]

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer list of features of National security state

In his book "Brave New World Order" (Orbis Books, 1992, paper), Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argues that the Bush I war in Iraq (as well as Bush II invasion and occupation of the country) was an action of the military industrial complex usurping the "peace dividend". Iraq was attractive target as it has oil and far enough away to prove a good vehicle for eating up contract cash. He views the rise of the National Security Defense State as a consequence of "the threat of peace" for military industrial complex and identifies seven characteristics of a such a state:

  1. The military is the highest authority. In a National Security State the military not only guarantees the security of the state against all internal and external enemies, it has enough power to determine the overall direction of the society. In a National Security State the military exerts important influence over political, economic, as well as military affairs.
  2. Political democracy and democratic elections are viewed with suspicion, contempt, or in terms of political expediency. National Security States often maintain an appearance of democracy. However, ultimate power rests with the military or within a broader National Security Establishment.
  3. The military and related sectors wield substantial political and economic power. They do so in the context of an ideology which stresses that 'freedom" and "development" are possible only when capital is concentrated in the hands of elites.
  4. Obsession with enemies. There are enemies of the state everywhere. Defending against external and/or internal enemies becomes a leading preoccupation of the state, a distorting factor in the economy, and a major source of national identity and purpose.
  5. The working assumption is that the enemies of the state are cunning and ruthless. Therefore, any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified.
  6. It restricts public debate and limits popular participation through secrecy or intimidation. Authentic democracy depends on participation of the people. National Security States limit such participation in a number of ways: They sow fear and thereby narrow the range of public debate; they restrict and distort information; and they define policies in secret and implement those policies through covert channels and clandestine activities. The state justifies such actions through rhetorical pleas of "higher purpose" and vague appeals to "national security."
  7. The church is expected to mobilize its financial, ideological, and theological resources in service to the National Security State.
Now we can add one additional feature
  1. Total surveillance

Compare that definition of the National Security State with the definition of Inverted Totalitarism. Most countries now have features of both.

The debate about National Security State reemerged in June 2008 due to revelations make about existence of the Prism program and similar program by British security services. For example, Jacob Augstein used the term "Obama's Soft Totalitarianism" in his article Europe Must Stand Up to American Cyber-Snooping published by SPIEGEL.

Here is an interesting comment of user MelFarrellSr in The Guardian discussion of the article NSA analysts 'willfully violated' surveillance systems, agency admits (August 24, 2013):

Here's the thing about the NSA, the GCHQ, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, et al...

We all have to stop commenting as if the NSA and the GCHQ are in this thing on their own; the reality is that no one was supposed to know one iota about any of these programs; the NSA and the GCHQ began and put in place the structure that would allow all internet service providers, and indeed all corporations using the net, the ability to track and profile each and every user on the planet, whether they be using the net, texting, cell, and landline.

We all now know that Google, Yahoo, and the rest, likely including major retailers, and perhaps not so major retailers, are all getting paid by the United States government, hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, our money, to profile 24/7 each and every one of us..., they know how we think, our desires, our sexual preferences, our religious persuasion, what we spend, etc.; make no mistake about it, they know it all, and what they don’t currently have, they will very soon…

These agencies and indeed all those who are paid by them, will be engaged over the next few weeks in a unified program of "perception management" meaning that they will together come up with an all-encompassing plan that will include the release of all manner of statements attesting to the enforcement of several different disciplinary actions against whomever for "illegal" breaches of policy...

They may even bring criminal actions against a few poor unfortunate souls who had no idea they would be sacrificed as one part of the "perception management" game.

Has anyone wondered why, to date, no one in power has really come out and suggested that the program must be curtailed to limit its application to terrorism and terrorist types?

Here’s why; I was fortunate recently to have given an education on how networks such as Prism, really work, aside from the rudimentary details given in many publications. They cannot, and will not, stop monitoring even one individuals activity, because to do so will eventually cause loss of the ability to effectively monitor as many as 2.5 Million individuals.

Remember the “Two to Three Hop” scenario, which the idiot in one of the hearings inadvertently spoke of; therein lies the answer. If the average person called 40 unique people, three-hop analysis would allow the government to mine the records of 2.5 million Americans Do the math; Internet usage in the United States as of June 30, 2012 reached a total of over 245,000,000 million…

The following link shows how connected the world is… http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm

We should never forget how the Internet began, and who developed it, the United States Armed Forces; initially it was known as Arpanet, see excerpt and link below…

"The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation." - Supreme Court Judge statement on considering first amendment rights for Internet users.

"On a cold war kind of day, in swinging 1969, work began on the ARPAnet, grandfather to the Internet. Designed as a computer version of the nuclear bomb shelter, ARPAnet protected the flow of information between military installations by creating a network of geographically separated computers that could exchange information via a newly developed protocol (rule for how computers interact) called NCP (Network Control Protocol).”

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa091598.htm

There is no government anywhere on the planet that will give up any part of the program…, not without one hell of a fight...

Incidentally, they do hope and believe that everyone will come to the same conclusion; they will keep all of us at bay for however long it takes; they have the money, they have the time, and they economically control all of us...

Pretty good bet they win...

Whether the United States stands within the order of international law or outside it ?

The book American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (edited by Ignatieff) raised an important and probably the most controversial question in world politics: whether the United States stands within the order of international law or outside it.

Following are based on the article by Laurence W. Britt published in Free Inquiry magazine

To a secular humanist, the principles of international law seems logical, right, and crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

The following regimes can be studies in this respect: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. They constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

One can wonder how many of those are applicable to Bush/McCain. What do you think ?
  1. Propaganda of nationalism and Exceptionalism ("shining city on the hill", beckon of democracy, etc). Prominent displays of flags and ubiquitous lapel pins. The fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy. Pride in the military, and demands for unity are way of expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a level of suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia (French fries - Freedom fries).

  2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. Despite "freedom rhetorics" the party views human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious and truth about gulags is out, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

  3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the parties would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, such as Muslims, communists/socialists/liberals, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Opponents of these party were inevitably labeled as terrorists stooges and dealt with accordingly.

  4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites identified closely with the military. A disproportionate share of national budget is allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an ultimate expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

  5. Sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, the party covertly views women as second-class citizens. Often are both anti-abortion and homophobic with the cover of religious values. For propaganda reasons those attitudes were masterfully blended into strong support of the fundamentalist religious sects, thus lending the party some legitimacy to cover for its abuses.

  6. A controlled mass media. The mass media could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Control can be indirect and subtle with formal adoption of slogan about "free media". Methods included the control of licensing, access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders and owners of the mass media are part of the power elite. The result is rampant brainwashing, which usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the party's excesses.

  7. Obsession with national security. A national security apparatus is bend to come under direct control of the ruling elite. It is used to bypass laws as a direct instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

  8. Abuse of religion. The party attaches itself to the dominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of religious values. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with those values is swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents are “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the party is tantamount to an attack on religion.

  9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

  10. Power of organized labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Being poor was considered akin to a vice.

  11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these party. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities professors come under close scrutiny; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or scientific theories, especially economic, are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.

  12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police is often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Criminal charges sometimes are used against political opponents. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

  13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

  14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of two candidates representing the same power elite are usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, suppressing responsibilities for legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

Edward Snowden quotes about National Security State

The most recent debate about the legitimacy of national security state as exists in the USA was sparked by Edward Snowden revelations. The following are 27 quotes from Edward Snowden about National Security State modus operandi  might send a chill up your spine...


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

National Security State

National Security State Bulletin, 2017 National Security State Bulletin, 2016 National Security State Bulletin, 2015

[Nov 21, 2018] An alternative view on Turkey and Khashoggi by Marios Evriviades

Notable quotes:
"... By Marios Evriviades ..."
"... [*] Marios Evriviades is a former Cyprus diplomat and presidential advisor. He is a professor of international relations at universities in Greece and Cyprus. ..."
www.defenddemocracy.press
Turkey: Milking the Khashoggi Murder

By Marios Evriviades
Athens

Can a man gasping for breath as he is forcibly suffocated with a plastic bag over his head, articulate his survival problem multisyllabically with a medicalized request to which he invited his killers to consent? "I'm suffocating Take this bag off my head, I'm claustrophobic".

These are the alleged last words of Saudi politician and journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to the latest leak from the Turkish intelligence agencies. If you are keeping count, this may be the 22nd in the series since Khashoggi's disappearance in Istanbul on October 2. The last words come from the audio tape of a recording system installed, unsuspected and undetected in the Saudi consulate, by some of the finest electronic equipment the Turkish services have received from their western allies.

Before the new last words leaked into the press, there was no plastic bag. The previous Turkish version was that Khashoggi was attacked within minutes of entering the Saudi

consulate at 13:14 on the fateful day; strangled by the bare hands of at least one, possibly two attackers, as he fought and screamed for his life. Those screams, according to an even earlier Turkish leak, were recorded on a device Khashoggi was wearing undetected on his wrist, primed to transmit to his Turkish fiancée standing outside the building.

Then there is the crucial matter of the corpus delicti. For without that, in a police or coroner's court in a country other than Turkey, there is only the case of a missing person. That person's body is missing, the world was originally told, because it had been cut into pieces with a bone-saw.

In disclosures to the press which have followed, the body pieces were taken in packages by car to the nearby house of the Saudi Consul-General. There they were either buried in the backyard, or thrown in a garden well, or carried off in another vehicle by a local Turkish subcontractor and disposed of in a nearby forest. Because Turkish investigators have found no trace of any of these things, we are now told that none of them happened. In addition, no explanation has been given by the Turkish services, which had earlier provided photographs of body parts, including a scalped head, allegedly Khashoggi's, which have been circulating in Turkey and other countries.

The version which has followed in the more squeamish western press is that the body parts of Khashoggi were dissolved in acid at the home of the consul, and that is the reason we are now told the body could not be found. Strangely, no traces of acid were reported to have been found in the house or its well or waste system, after the Turks entered and searched it thoroughly days before the story of the acid appeared. The acid traces were reported to have been found in the house of the consul days later, once the earlier versions of Khashoggi's "disappearance" had ceased to be plausible or possible.

Read also: The Empire Strikes Back: Hillary Clinton and the military-industrial complex

The world has been asked by the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to believe all of this in sequence, and forget each story as the Turks released new ones. Also, the world was requested to share in the Turks' moral outrage at the dastardly act. Turkish morality is the reason Erdogan's subordinates threw a temper tantrum when the French Foreign Minister,

Jean-Yves Le Drian, accused Erdogan of "playing a political game" https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1NH0O5 with the Khashoggi murder. The evidence Erdogan has been releasing makes this plain to everyone.

But not to the righteous Turks. Did not their president say to an international audience on October 23, and in an editorial he arranged with the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fglobal-opinions%2fwp%2f2018%2f11%2f02%2frecep-tayyip-erdogan-saudi-arabia-still-has-many-questions-to-answer-about-jamal-khashoggis-killing%2f%3f on November 2, that he will move "earth and heaven" to get to the bottom of the Khashoggi case; have the Saudi perpetrators punished no matter how high-ranking they are -- Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's photograph is placed in illustration of Erdogan's words, but he himself doesn't dare name him. Erdogan has also promised to serve justice; give Khashoggi a muslim funeral; and ensure that nothing of this kind will ever again occur in a NATO member state. (These are not assurances Erdogan has offered the families of the fourteen Turkish journalists also still missing in Erdogan's jurisdiction; seven of them confirmed dead, including the famous Hrant Dink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink )

How dare anyone question Erdogan's integrity? is the unanimous cry out of Turkey.

Let me tell you why. The Turks do not have to move "earth and heaven" now to get to the bottom of the Khashoggi murder. They could have done that within hours – repeat hours -- of the reported disappearance of Khashoggi, by arresting the eighteen alleged Saudi murderers; by searching the premises of the Istanbul consulate and the residence of the Saudi consul; and by arresting him as a co-conspirator in the homicide. Within hours, the Turkish authorities reporting to Erdogan had all the prima fac ie evidence they needed to establish that a crime had been committed. But act they did not. Instead, they – that means Erdogan -- allowed the alleged murderers to leave Istanbul on the evening after the crime was committed. They allowed the Saudi Consul, Mohammed al-Otaibi, to take his time – two weeks -- before he departed on October 16.

Read also: Saudi Arabia has to be stopped and this time it may get stopped

On what the Turks did or did not do in their prosecution of the Khashoggi case, let

Yasar Yakis tell us. Yakis is a retired career diplomat, a former Turkish Foreign Minister and member of Erdogan's Islamist party. In a subtle article, "What Turkey did and didn't do about the Khashoggi murder", published on October 24 in the English-language

Turkish website Ahval, https://ahvalnews.com/jamal-khashoggi/what-turkey-did-and-didnt-do-about-khashoggi-murder based in Washington, Yakis endorsed Turkey for what it "did". He also went on to report what it "didn't do", and why. Yakis is quite revealing.

By citing the official time frame of Khashoggi's disappearance, Yakis shows that the authorities had ample time to decide they were holding enough evidence that a serious crime had been committed on the premises of the Saudi Consulate and at the home of the Saudi consul in Istanbul; by a group of Saudi nationals carrying diplomatic passports who had flown into the country in two private jets and a commercial airline early on October 2. Since Turkish laws had been violated, the authorities knew they had the legal right, in line with the 1963 Geneva Convention on Consular Relations, to search the Saudi diplomatic premises, and arrest the suspects, including the Consul-General. Their diplomatic status, the Turkish authorities knew at the time and Yakis has repeated, guaranteed immunity from search and arrest only in the Saudi performance of diplomatic duties. Committing murder, as the evidence immediately suggested, was not one of them.

Yakis does argue that the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention limited the right of Turkish entry and search at the consulate and the consul's home, putting off-limits the Saudi

office archives and documents related to the diplomatic activities routinely carried out at the mission.

Additionally in his Ahval article Yakis discloses a crucial detail. Whether Yakis intended it or not, he reveals the deliberate and manipulative behaviour of the Turkish authorities. Fifteen of the alleged culprits departed in two private planes at 18.20 and 22.50 hours respectively, after going through regular customs clearance. Even if as Erdogan revealed in his October 23 statement the Turkish authorities did not learn the fate of Khashoggi until 17:50 on October 2 -- a time that is patently false if the timeline leaked by Turkish intelligence is accepted as the truth – there was still plenty of time for the Turks to arrest the fifteen, plus another three of the conspirators who left on a commercial flight.

What is reported by Yakis is that "the plane carrying part of the Saudi team was stopped in the skies above Nallihan (a rural district in the Ankara Province) and ordered into a holding pattern, before being allowed on its way. If the plane had been forced to land, and itspassengers put under questioning, a great deal of now unknown information would have been obtained".

Read also: Corbyn Fires Back at Netanyahu's Criticism, Slams Israeli Nation State Law

Yakis reveals that it wasn't necessary for the Turks to move "earth and heaven" – all they had to do on the evening of October 2 was to prevent the alleged culprits from fleeing the scene of the crime, or stopping them at the airport, or in their airplanes before they left Turkish airspace. At that time, even if the Consul had been left untouched, the case would have been wrapped up in no time.

But Erdogan and his associates had other, more ambitious plans. It is those plans unfolding which have dictated each new leak. Had Erdogan decided to hold the eighteen fleeing Saudis, that would have meant rupturing relations with the Saudi kingdom, but this is something Erdogan and his officials repeat they do not want to do. However, such behaviour is exactly what the French foreign minister meant when he accused Erdogan, directly and personally, "that he has a political game to play in these circumstances."

And what is this game? Foremost, the Turks are attempting to concoct an image of themselves and of their Great (Buyuk) Leader as defenders of justice and of international law and order, while extracting rewards for this pretence from all those, primarily the West

and Israel, who have a stake in the stability of the present Saudi regime. If Khashoggi's death was Saudi state murder, Erdogan's game is Turkish state extortion. That makes two crimes.

This Saudi regime does not deserve sympathy. It must be held accountable, not only for the fate of Khashoggi, but for much more which the regime is responsible for in promoting war, terrorist violence and sectarian extremism from Syria to Yemen and further afield. Holding the Saudis accountable for Khashoggi's murder is one thing. It's not the only thing. Allowing Erdogan's Turkey to prevail as source and judge of the truth of this case serves faking and falsehood, not justice. End+

[*] Marios Evriviades is a former Cyprus diplomat and presidential advisor. He is a professor of international relations at universities in Greece and Cyprus.

[Nov 20, 2018] The Torah, biblical and Quran stories were written in agrarian societies where capitalistic enterprise hardly existed. Loans were for not dying of hunger in the period between when the food of the last harvest had been used completely, and the new harvest was still in the future.

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:21 pm GMT

@tac The Torah, biblical and Quran stories were written in agrarian societies where capitalistic enterprise hardly existed.
Loans were for not dying of hunger in the period between when the food of the last harvest had been used completely, and the new harvest was still in the future.
Thus interest was seen as blackmailing people, they needed money to prevent dying of starvation.
There was enterprise long ago, and trade over long distances, in the early centuries for example swords from Damascus were famous in Europe, and exported to Europe.
Investment for business was the exception, even the first iron smelting installations were simple, those who wanted them could build them by themselves.
The idea that invested money could yield money came later, when installations became more complex, ships bigger, etc.
With investment came risk, there was not much risk in consumptive loans, they normally could paid out of the coming harvest.
And so the problem began, a church not understanding capitalism, an agrarian society based on barter changing into a money using capitalistic society.
Commercial people had no problem with interest, even now Muslims do not have problems with interest.
What they do is simply giving interest other names, such as a fine for repaying late.
It has been agreed that the repayment will be late, so anybody is happy.

[Nov 20, 2018] It is an interesting side-note that both Christianity and Islam both prohibit the use of usury

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , says: November 14, 2018 at 6:35 am GMT

@renfro And there you have it in a nutshell: usary -- the usurper of civilization, the enslaver of humanity, the seed of ultimate degeneracy. It seems humanity is adverse to learn from history. It is an interesting side-note that both Christianity and Islam both prohibit the use of usury (a consideration worthy of mention when one contemplates the ongoing wars in the ME) and some who here take shots at Farakhann, 'neo-nazis', blue-hair and other deplorables.

Our dilemma today is the same that occurred in Rome. Our country and people will suffer the same fate if usury continues as it has. From the onset of history, it has been the moneychangers, who have exploited mankind for pure profit. Usury is an abomination against God's statutes, which manipulates and destroys people, families, and nations. It is by the profits made from usury used to attack Christianity. One needs only to ask- who is in control of usury worldwide? Didn't Rome suffer from these same people? Usury brings forth an insidious side to all people. The temptation to borrow is powerful, and it always polarizes lender against borrower where the former becomes the master and the later, the slave. As a vice, neighbor is pitted against his neighbor, and nation against nation.

[...]

The Roman government was far too corrupt already with its politicians bought by moneychangers for any fledgling Christian sect to have an affect on its decline. The moneychanger's demand was perpetually self-serving, which was disparate to the common good of the populace. Originally, Rome was founded as a republic. The unchecked influence of the moneychangers caused it to change into a democracy. A republic is derived through the election of public officials whose attitude toward property is respected in terms of law for individual rights. A democracy is derived through the election of public officials whose attitude toward property is communistic and respects the "collective good" of the population instead of the individual. This is the resultant system that moneychangers bring to civilization. The subversion of power is a sleight of hand that changes the right of the individual into what is often called the "collective good" of the people (communistic), which is always controlled by an alliance of powerful interests.

There is no reference in the article to the moneychangers and their lawyers sowing the seeds for Roman society to suffocate under its own lethargic weight. Lawyers were indeed a problem to Rome. The Romans were so concerned by lawyers' opprobrious effect on public morale that they attempted to curb their influence. In 204 BC, the Roman Senate passed a law prohibiting lawyers from plying their trade for money. As the Roman republic declined and became more democratic, it became increasingly difficult to keep lawyers in check and prevent them from accepting fees under the table. Indeed, they were very useful to the moneychangers. The lawyers fed upon corruption and accelerated the downward plunge of Roman civilization. Some wealthy Romans began sending their sons to Greece to finish their schooling, to learn rhetoric (Julius Caesar was one example) -- a lawyer's cleverness in oration. This compounded Rome's growing woes.
[...]
The moneychangers destroyed Rome from within by first monopolizing usury, monopolizing the precious mineral trade and then disproportionately magnifying the temporal businesses of prostitution (including pedophilia and homosexuality), and slavery. Constantine (306-337 AD) was the first Roman emperor to issue laws, which radically limited the rights of Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a privilege conferred upon them by Caracalla in 212 AD. The laws of Constantius (337-361 AD) recognized the Jewish domination of the slave trade and acted to greatly curtail it. A law of Theodosius II (408-410 AD), prohibited Jews from holding any advantageous office of honor in the Roman state. Always the impetus was buying influence concerning their trade.
[...]
Usury has been the opiate that has ruined the ingenuity of many of its civilizations. As this Jewish craft spread, the people increasingly suffered from the burdens of indebtedness. So troubling was the effects of usury that Lex Genucia outlawed usury in 342 BC. Nevertheless, ways of evading such legislation were found and by the last period of the Republic, usury was once again rife. Emperors like Julius Caesar and Justinian tried to limit the interest rate and control its devastating effects (Birnie, 1958). Entertainment was a way to temporarily set aside the burdens of indebtedness. It was a way to festively indulge in all the glory that Rome had to offer. Rome soon became drunk on hedonism. Collectively, entertainment helped disguise the collapsing of a great power. Spectator blood sports, brothels, carnivals, festivals, and parties substituted for everything that was wrong with Rome.
[...]
Rome became a multi-cultural state much like our own in the United States. Indeed, it was truly an international city. Foreigners of every nation resided and worked there. The Romans soon intermarried and had children with the many foreigners. This included concubines from the numerous slaves won through war. Rome had an extraordinary large slave population and was estimated to make up about two-thirds of its population at one time.
[...]
Eventually, the Romans lost their tribal cohesion and identity. The population of Rome had changed and so did its character. Increasing demands were made of the ruling patricians. The aristocrats tried to appease the masses, but eventually those demands could not be sustained. Rome had become bankrupt. The effects of usury polarized the patrician class against an increasingly dispossessed and burdened class of citizens.
[...]
Rome was bankrupt and was collapsing. The parasitic nature of usury and its effect on government was too complex for the uneducated plebeians to understand (see Addendum for an illustration of usury's power). Indeed, it was the moneychangers with the use of their lawyers that destroyed pagan Rome. The Jewish interests did not control all usury. However, they were a people well recognized as being extremely loyal to each other and adept in the black craft of usury. To all others (gentiles) they showed hate and enmity. Throughout history the weapon of usury is used again and again to destroy nations.
[...]
Fortunately, the writings of Cicero survived the burning of libraries. In the case against Faccus, we can see the crafts of the Jews are the same today. The Jews clearly held great influence in politics as a result of their professions and profited immensely at the expense of Rome. We can further deduce by the case of Faccus that the Jews were not concerned with the interests of Rome, but rather for their own interests. The Jewish gold was being shipped from Rome and its provinces throughout the empire to Jerusalem. Why? We also know that the Jews had utter contempt and hatred of the Romans. This contempt is demonstrated by their breaking of Roman law, which Faccus tried to uphold. If we look closer, we see that gold has a very special meaning to all Jewry unlike any other people.
[...]
There are enough records for us to piece together what actually occurred in Rome that led to its downfall. Rome fell as a result of corruption and the lack of cohesion of its own people. But, it was the instrument of usury that brought about this corruption and allowed its gold and silver to be controlled by Jewish interests.
[...]
It was Christianity that put an end to the destructive nature of usury on its people (see addendum for usury example). Rome's treasury became barren as a result of the moneychangers. It weakened the Roman Empire immeasurably, and thrust untold millions in poverty, debt, and in prison. It was Christianity that halted the influence of the Jews and their destructive trades and practices. And, the Christian faith spread throughout the former Roman Empire. All of the European people eventually became Christianity's vanguard and champion. Without the strict adherence to the moral ethos, any civilization will devolve into the religion of Nimrod.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/index274.htm

[Nov 20, 2018] A Jewish conman Bill Browder, who made the US Congress to dance to his tune, is named as a suspect in four murders: "'Highly likely that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders"

Notable quotes:
"... "The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky." ..."
"... This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel. ..."
Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: Next New Comment November 19, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT

@anonymous A Jewish conman Bill Browder, who made the US Congress to dance to his tune, is named as a suspect in four murders: "'Highly likely that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders" https://www.rt.com/russia/444340-browder-magnitsky-murder-moscow/

"The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded.

The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths An investigation into four possible murders has been opened.

Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky."

This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel.

That Browder (a liar and cheat that made a huge fortune in Russia) has "benefited most from the death of Magnitsky" is undoubtedly true.

[Nov 20, 2018] A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski , says: November 17, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT

Very important, with "Eyes Wide Open," Alison Weir, below!

https://israelpalestinenews.org/is-israel-turning-a-blind-eye-as-israeli-scammers-swindle-victims-in-france-us-elsewhere/

renfro , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:53 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski Not surprising to anyone who understands that stealing ,especially from 'others' is a first choice career of Jews/Israelis.
I have always suspected that the 9 billion of stolen Iraq funds were stolen by the Jews who were embedded in the US occupation administration and sent to Israel. Israel was so broke in 2001 they asked the Us for economic aid then suddenly in 2004 by some miracle they were rolling in surplus money again.

Investigations reveal a pattern of Israeli officials stone-walling efforts to stop the perpetrators of massive financial swindles in various countries, from Europe to the US to the Philippines While some Israeli reporters work to expose the scams, a new one is already underway

By Alison Weir

[MORE]
French and Israeli media report that a group largely made up of Israelis scammed 3,000 French citizens out of approximately $20 million. Most of the stolen money is in Israel, but Israeli authorities are reportedly failing to cooperate with France in prosecuting the scammers and retrieving the money.
This is the latest of numerous examples of Israeli officials stone-walling international efforts against the perpetrators of massive financial swindles around the world, according to Israeli investigative journalists and others. These scams have brought estimated billions into the Israeli economy, propping up a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing against indigenous Palestinians. Together, the stories paint a picture of a government that seems to be turning a blind eye to -- and even protecting -- scammers.

A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."

A former IRS expert on international crime notes that "fraudulent industries are often major economic drivers, and that can translate into political clout."
Some Israeli journalists have been working to expose the situation in Israeli newspapers, publishing exposés like "As Israel turns blind eye to vast binary options fraud, French investigators step in" and "Are French Jewish criminals using Israel as a get-out-of-jail card?" (Short answer: yes.)

Victimizing French business owners & churches

The victims of the recent scam against French citizens included churches and the owners of small businesses -- delicatessens, car repair shops, hair salons, plumbers, etc. Some lost their life savings and describe being threatened and intimidated by the scammers.

[Nov 20, 2018] Ukraine whistleblower exposes alleged DNC collusion

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Phil,

Andrii Telizhenko (fled Ukraine) is here in DC now. Lee is trying very hard to connect him with Don Jr., etc. Do you have any channel?

Ukraine whistleblower exposes alleged DNC collusion

[Nov 20, 2018] When do we take a stand, (when do we fight)?

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

TRASH(NOT) , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT

@anonymous

Both share an implacable sense of Islamophobia. And, the deep sense of racial inferiority complex which the hindoos feel, fits well with the cursed ideology of their supremacist white-skinned Zionist masters. Them hindoos are willful lickspittle of the Jooscum.

Man you really hit the bull's eye with this astute observation of yours (or is the golden cafe we have here?? ;))

What I think is that, these hindoos (at least the ones who are on the top of the totem pole) have what robert lindsay used to describe as, a very deep sense of inferiority complex intertwined with a very superficial sense of superiority on the outside. Deeper the inferiority complex, stronger the (external) superiority complex to offset the deep sense of shame they have on the inside. I wonder why that is?

However it would be wrong to paint the whole country of India with the same brush. A massive percentage of people there are bearing the brunt of toxic hatred and violence emanating from the likes of 'zionist lickspittles' you mentioned. One can only surmise what they must be enduring. These low caste and other minorities there would be a very patient and stoic people as otherwise India would've erupted into a full blown civil war by now.

As for the 'jooscum', I take issue with that. There certainly are Jews, like Unz, Atzmon and Shamir who defy the stereotype and become champions of real free speech and truth. So again one must NOT go down that slippery slope of putting each and everyone to the guillotine just because they happen to be cohen or ahmed or rahul or whatever. We are better than that

Durruti , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:20 pm GMT
@anon Thanks for reading my comment.

The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments), to the Constitution were added to mitigate criticism of the new centralized American Constitutional Gov't.

Jefferson said the Constitution made his stomach turn.

Nevertheless, (with all its faults) it (the somewhat sovereign American gov't), was replaced on November 22, 1963

When do we take a stand? We must Restore our Republic (there is no obfuscating around our duty).

You care.

God bless!

[Nov 20, 2018] Israel support const Us taxpayers more than just the 3 billion per year, it more like 5 billion if you count the 760,000 for missile defense and a dozen other programs for aid to Israel. Cost was 1.6 trillion as of 2002, probably 2 trillion by now.

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: November 16, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski Its much more than that .we have a lot of cost for Israel than just the yearly 3 billion, it more like 5 billion if you count the 760,000 for missile defense and a dozen other programs for aid to Israel. Cost was 1.6 trillion as of 2002, probably 2 trillion by now.

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US

December 9, 2002

By David R. Francis ,Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

[MORE]
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.

In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.

That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

[Nov 20, 2018] Supposedly the 1965 Immigration Act was engineered by Jews to destroy white society. What it did accomplish was importing a bunch of Asians and Hispanics who do not care a whit about Israel or Jews and some Muslims who detest them.

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jeff Stryker , says: November 15, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT

@JC1 Asian-Americans are not brainwashed. When the LA riots occurred in part because a Korean woman shot a black girl in the back of the head in her store, the Korean shopkeepers simply got out their guns and started shooting black rioters like dogs which of course they privately regard them to be. Blacks paid cash in their liquor stores but once this was no longer a factor they simply started shooting at them-with much greater accuracy, too. The average ghetto black was no match for a Korean with an SKS rifle.

Iranian Muslims are not brainwashed. When Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League who had previously been known for brawling with Metzger and the Klan on talk shows tried to blow up the mosque and congressman Issa after 9-11 (I guess he did not get the memo that the Z were behind it) he was imprisoned. His death was suspicious and probably the result of Aryan gangs on the inside. At any rate, so much for Jewish domination of the Muslims.

Hindus are supposedly cooperating with Jews in their takeover of the tech industry. I cannot be sure of that. However, they are not brainwashed.

And as our Italian-American posters have noted here, the Italians who long resided in the same cities with Jews don't give a "rat's culo" for Israel.

Supposedly the 1965 Immigration Act was engineered by Jews to destroy white society. What it did accomplish was importing a bunch of Asians and Hispanics who do not care a whit about Israel or Jews and some Muslims who detest them.

So it is the rural white prole who is brainwashed. He comes home from a hard day's work and watches some film like BLACK PANTHER where a bunch of effete British character actors play the baddies and the black Mandingo walks around in a costume and they want him to screw their sister.

The Korean or Iranian or Italian in the city does not want to imitate blacks. Few of them are whiggers. It is the rural white prole who wants to "keep it real". Italians who do choose to be gangsters do not go to jail for the petty crimes that whiggers do.

I must say that the white is something of a fool. And I should add, I am one. Whites seemed smarter in the 1990′s. But somehow they declined after Bush was elected.

[Nov 20, 2018] Doesn't anyone else get fatigued by the constant demand for attention by the one Ethnostate supposedly created by God

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT

@Burgess Shale

Doesn't anyone else get fatigued by the constant demand for attention by the one Ethnostate supposedly created by God ? What's in it for me ?

You get to pay for it.

Why Israel Will Never Repay US Loans

Dr. Israel Shahak

[MORE]
"All conceivable questions have been discussed about scheduling and conditions of the $10 billion in loan guarantees requested by Israel from the US government except one: How can Israel possibly repay such a huge sum? After all, if Israel cannot repay these loans, the burden will fall upon the guarantor, the US government, which in the last analysis means upon the US taxpayers.

Such a repayment would in fact amount to foreign aid under another name. Because of the deterioration of economic conditions in the US, no matter what forms of pressure the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may use, the Congress will be reluctant to offer Israel $10 billion in an extra aid gift.
Given these realities, the best guess would be that both sides already know that since Israel is not capable of repaying the US guaranteed loans, they regard the guarantees as a gift to Israel in disguise.

A Gift in Disguise

Yitzhak Shamir and other Israeli government spokesmen, as well as spokesmen for Israel's US lobby, constantly reiterate that Israel has so far been repaying its debts on time. They don't mention that the US pays the interest on those loans, and eventually forgives them. If the US did not do this, Israel's case would soon be comparable to that of the USSR and other debt-ridden states which used their past good repayment records as justification for borrowing more and more, until finally they defaulted on all their loans. The situation is described by Israeli economist Zvi Timor, the editor of Al-Hamishmar, in an article entitled "Dignified Behavior Under Pressure" in his journal's September 17 issue:
"For years we have been repaying all our debts from what we've been receiving as American aid. Every year Israel gets $1.3 billion of economic aid, of which $ 1.1 billion goes for debt repayment."
In other words, 85 percent of American economic aid "is not spent as it is supposed to be. From private but reliable sources, I know that last year the sum in question reached $1.2 billion, i.e. 92 percent of the received "economic aid." It means that the American taxpayers have been, without their knowledge, repaying the Israeli debt for years. Ordinary Americans would be overjoyed if they learned that their debts were being repaid by somebody else. If Israeli debt repayment goes under the name of "economic aid," it is to conceal from the US public the knowledge that they are repaying somebody else's debts.

The deception is nevertheless obvious for the simple reason that the expenditure of between $11 and $12 billion over 10 years would otherwise have produced some visible effects in Israel. None, however, can be seen.

According to the Congressional Research Service issue brief, "Israel: US Foreign Assistance Facts" by Clyde R. Mark (updated May 8, 1991), Israel also benefits from periodic US government waivers. From 1974 to 1984, the United States waived repayment of part of Israel's annual FMS (Foreign Military Sales). Since 1985, the US has waived repayment of the total FMS. The waiver avoids establishing a program and personnel to oversee the program, as would be required if the same amount were given as a Military Assistance Program grant.

What this means is that since the entire value of the enormous military aid the US has granted Israel over the years is in fact a gift, Israel does not owe the US very much. The brief states further that "the United States gives all ESF (Economic Support Funds) directly to the Government of Israel rather than under a specific program. There is no accounting of how the funds are used. " No other recipient of American aid benefits from such conditions, which seem almost to have been designed to beget fraud. And fraud they did beget.
In fact, fraud and deceit have pervaded Israeli utilization of US support. Even the magnitude of this support has been misreported. Contrary to the data routinely cited by the Western press, combined US military and economic support to Israel has amounted not to $3.1 billion yearly, but, as Timor stated, "in sum total, without counting the guarantees, the US government helps Israel financially to the extent of about $5 billion."
In this sum he includes the value (to Israel) of "deductions [from US income tax] accruing to funds raised by the United Jewish Appeal. " Incidentally, the bulk of these funds, although they are put at the disposal of the Israeli government, remain in the US. They are used by AIPAC and other segments of the Israeli lobby in the United States. In this way, the US administration actually subsidizes lobbying power used against itself.

Other forms of covert American aid cited by Timor are discussed by Yossi Verter and Yigal Laviv in an article headlined "The American financial aid to Israel is much higher than previously known" in Hadashut of September 20. Their estimate of the total amount of support received by Israel from the US roughly concurs with Timor's.
Relying on "documents leaked by the State Department, which were published in part by the Wall Street Journal, " and also "on sources in the Congress" (and apparently on Israeli sources as well), the writers conclude that "financial aid which Israel receives from the US is much higher than published figures indicate, largely because Israel uses the received money for complex financial speculation schemes which are without exception detrimental to the interests of the American taxpayer."
They also assert that "between 1974 and 1989 Israel received from the US over $16 billion in the form of military aid, but no one in the US really expected that any part of this total would ever be repaid."

Asking About the Future

But let us leave the past aside, and ask about the future. Right now, the US pays existing Israeli debts to commercial banks and allows their recycling. The question that therefore remains is, how can Israel repay the additional principal and interest on the $10 billion in loans? Or, alternatively, can Israel renounce the guarantees and impose an austerity regime in their stead?
The latter option is already advocated by such Israeli ministers from the extreme right as former Chief of Staff and present Minister of Agriculture Rafael Eitan. After all, in order to repay this sum each year, Israel would have to increase its exports by at least $4 billion, or more if the profits from such exports did not reach 50 percent.
The last officially recorded value for Israeli exports was some $9.4 billion in 1988. The value of imports was $12.3 billion, yielding a trade deficit of 23.2 percent, according to the "Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1989." Since Israel is now in recession, the value of its exports could not have increased much since then.
In fact, one particular export, that of weaponry, has collapsed since 1988. The value of exported weapons, one-third of which went to Colombia alone, amounted in 1988 to $1.5 billion. The forecast for the next fiscal year was that this particular export would decrease to $213 million.
Two major markets for the Israeli exports now are North America ($3.1 billion, of which $3 billion goes to the US) and the European Common Market ($3.2 billion). Israeli exports to the US were composed chiefly of polished diamonds ($1.2 billion), medicines and chemicals ($180 million), and clothes and textiles ($125 million).

Only the gullible can expect that Americans, under present economic conditions, can be influenced by AIPAC to buy more Israeli diamonds in quantifies sufficient to cover the repayment of the new loans, to be borrowed at the rate of $2 billion per year for five years. An increase of Israeli exports by $4 billion, or some 43 percent in a single year, is, as Timor clearly recognizes, absolutely impossible.
Timor is right in pointing out that without the US guarantees, "a state like Israel, which already has an enormous foreign debt per capita, enormous defense budget, enormous budgetary deficit, and quite sizable trade deficit, would not be considered an attractive borrower on the international financial market. " It can be mentioned in passing that an Israeli budgetary deficit exists when the notyet granted American guarantees are already counted on its revenue side! All these facts only reinforce disbelief in Israel's ability to ever repay the loans guaranteed by the US.
The Austerity Alternative
The alternative option of renouncing the guarantees and imposing an austerity regime would also have dire consequences. The proposed reduction of all salaries by 10 percent would yield the equivalent in Israeli shekels of $2 billion. In addition to the social consequences of this proposal, a hefty proportion of Israeli wage-earners would thus rapidly land below the poverty line.
Nor would these sacrifices yield the intended economic effects. As Timor reminds his readers, Israeli shekels are worthless outside of Israel. His conclusion, backed by some additional arguments not mentioned here, is: "Any savings in shekels are bound to be quite ineffective, because shekels are not dollars."
The prediction that Israel cannot possibly repay the loans which the US is requested to guarantee rests on firm grounds. The data upon which this prediction is based, although not publicized by the media before the current clash of the US administration with the Israeli government and with the Israeli lobby in the US, were surely known to the advocates of the guarantees from the start. This inescapably leads to the conclusion that the guarantees were originally conceived as a grant in disguise. It would have been more honest to call them a gift.
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment, or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:00 am GMT
Explainer

What are Israel's Loan Guarantees?

2003

"The New York Times reported Tuesday that the United States may be planning to reduce Israel's loan guarantees to account for any money the country spends constructing a "security perimeter" that will divide its citizens from Palestinians. What are these loan guarantees, and how important are they to Israel?
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment, or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.

The $9 billion in loan guarantees (along with $1 billion in direct aid) comprise a special post-Gulf War II aid package, awarded to Israel on top of the $3 billion in other assistance that the United States gives annually. But with loan guarantees, it's never clear how much money is actually "given": In a perfect world, they wouldn't cost the United States a cent. Israel -- or Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which snagged loan guarantees as postwar rewards -- could borrow on the international markets, then pay off the loans completely, leaving the United States with no financial obligation. But Israel has already received nearly $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States since 1992, and while it has yet to default on any of those loans, this new round of guarantees is intended in part to help Israel pay off the old debt. Which means the United States could be stuck with a bill ranging anywhere from zero to $9 billion plus interest.
When borrowing on the United States' good credit, the Israeli government can use the money for any purpose. However, Congress attached a series of stipulations to the recent package, including one that reserves the right to reduce the guarantee amount to counterbalance any money Israel spends creating new settlements in contested territory. This caveat is exactly what Bush may use now to pressure Israel to cease construction on its "security perimeter" -- if the caveat is employed, Israel would find itself fully responsible for part of its loan (and thus with higher interest rates). And because Israel's annual revenues top out at $40 billion, any tweaks to a $9 billion aid package could shake up the country's economy.
Experts say it's far from clear that the Bush administration will follow through with this plan. But simply threatening to reduce the guarantees can also be effective because Israel needs the U.S.-backed loans to keep debt payments under control. In 1991, Israel was in a similarly desperate financial situation, and the United States used the threat of limiting loan guarantees to force then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to attend the Madrid peace conference and suspend settlement construction while he was there

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT
Jewish Groups Get 94% of Homeland Security Grants

https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/203059/jewish-groups-get-94-of-homeland-security-grants/

"The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94 percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits.
The $13 million disbursed last week brings to $151 million the amount disbursed since the program started in 2005, most of it to Jewish institutions "

anon [423] Disclaimer , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:33 am GMT
@Durruti Its not a no longer situation.

The USA is not a sovereign nation, America is a sovereign nation, could that be what you meant to say?

The USA is a corporation organized to govern; it owners are not investor-shareholders but robber-barren bandit stakeholders. The USA was established to mitigate and tame down the Democracy Americans had bleed red blood to achieve. Take a look at the corporate bylaws (constitution) of the USA, they consist of seven articles.

The Executive, Article I. (pres. vp,), the Congress Art. II. (board of directors), the Judiciary ( to settle difference) (Article III), Articles IV clarifies relations between the different generally lesser governments (states), Article V, invents a way to make it possible for the constitution to terminate the Confederation (that invention is called Ratification) It was ratification that transferred the power of government from the continental "democracy-practicing" masses right back into the hands of the few caretakers who were beholding to, or in service to, private banking and foreign interest. America governed itself for 11 years . After that the pre -evolution Oligarchs (wealthy or highly educated elites) managed to get ratified their constitution and to use it to put themselves right back into the positions of political and autocratic power they enjoyed before the revolution. The constitution eliminated the right of Americans to a say in the affairs of their government. (the government, and the affairs of government, were separated from the masses of the people. The USA was used to protect and enhance the aristocrats from the needs, wants and plight of the masses and to extract from the masses the funds that support USA operations. To accomplish that transition feat, the banksters used ( or invented and used) a process called ratification (Article VII). Ratification eliminated the American Democracy overseen by the Articles of Confederation (as administered by the American democratic continental government).

Read Constitution Article VI [2] and [3].. you will see.. authority..shall be supreme.. Judges Senators and Representatives ,.. Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the US and of the several States [shall be bound by it].

Constitution Article VI [1] ..engagements entered into, before the Adoption[ratification] ..shall be valid against the US [<=meaning in spite of the democratic wish of those who fought the British , the US corporation (USA) would "recognize as valid" deeds to real estate obtained by Land grant from a foreigner. Millions of acres of America would remain in a very few private hands. It meant many other similar things.. to numerous to mention here. Had the Confederation continued slavery most likely would have not survived.

Why bother with writing Article VI{1}? These few words allowed wealthy Washington Aristocrat types to retain their vast personal ownership in their humongous-stretches of real estate (land holdings) given (land granted) to them or to those from whom they acquired them by a foreign power (on behalf of the Banksters who in those days controlled everything). Democracy itself was the threat that produced the US Constitution ; the US constitution eliminated democracy ; the constitution replaced America's democracy by confederation with a republic (meaning no one but the elected few are to be permitted any say in anything (go back to work and shut the **** up).

Why was democracy a threat ? The Confederation (government by agreement) was being urged by its war vets to make good on its promises to give every vet a homestead and a pension for their service in the war. The vets were demanding all land in America belonged to Americans. they were insisting to refuse to recognize claims (deeds) to real estate that predated the American revolution; we don't recognize deeds from foreign kings. British, French or Spanish land grant owners turn the ownership of your land over to America (the confederation), such land does not belong to you. We Americans do not recognize land grants from foreign governments; these lands never belonged to foreigners so they could not give them to you. Needless to say, land grant owners (Washington and family owned most of Virginia and a great part of West Virginia <=reason George was appointed general of the continental army, he was so rich everyone would know who he was and volunteer to help fight the British).

It must be remembered that the Confederation (Articles of Confederation, not the USA) was the government that defeated the British in the American Revolution, 1776-1778! The USA did not then exist. Eleven Confederation years between 1776 (Declaration of Independence) and the ratification of the USA (1789)

Ratification truncated the American Democracy; ratification re-established the British Bankster appointed Aristocrats as puppets in charge over America.

The US Constitution created an Americanized form of British Parliamentary government, in virtually the same form as existed in British Colonial times, but without a king or queen (instead a President and Vice President); so the USA was the banker's government that would control America, its just that most Americans did not know it. Most Americans cannot name one of the 11 presidents of the Confederation (AOC government) because misleading propaganda has been substituted in their school taught histories. Most Americans don't understand federalism, nor do they have any idea the angry controversy that forced the USA into existence.

I have written this several times and each time I understand more about what happened. If you see I am wrong please say so.. I am really interested to sort out the truth and that was a long time ago.

[Nov 20, 2018] Israel Wins 2018 Election by Philip Giraldi

With all due respect to Philip Giraldi I do not buy this reasoning. Outsize influence of Israel in the US politics and especially in foreign policy is a direct result of correlation of the goals of Israel and USA on the Middle East. In a way Israel acts as yet another (informal) US state. The moment Israel tries to pursue independent foreign policy (for example by booting Likud from government and electing more reasonable party and deviating from the USA goals) it will face consequences, Israeli lobby or no Israeli lobby. Israel also acts as yet another lobbyist for the US military industrial complex.
The fact that media is owned by large corporations does no imply that it is owned by Israeli interests. And if MSM conduct pro-Israeli propaganda they do so reflecting interests of the the US elite -- financial oligarchy. And a large percentage of financial oligarchy support Zionism.
But the fact of interference of Israeli government in the USA election are reprehensible and those involved should be prosecuted. Possibly using RICO act.
Discussion of the article is much more interesting then the article itself, revealing many additional aspects of the power of Israeli lobby to influence the US elections. As well as the list of US politicians they managed to send to the dustbin of history.
Notable quotes:
"... While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests. ..."
"... It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first to go. Next? ..."
"... The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US (Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for you. ..."
"... Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial law and that was that. ..."
"... The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in Syria. ..."
"... The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States. I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc. ..."
"... The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came from none other than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"? ..."
"... You are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that "foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their nuclear facilities. ..."
"... Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as "agents of a foreign government" as required by American law. ..."
"... Israel is indeed a "special case". ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

It is particularly ironic that as the midterm campaigns were drawing to a close there appeared some serious investigative journalism that demonstrates precisely how Israel and Jewish groups corrupt the political process in America to provide virtually unlimited support for anything and everything that the despicable Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war criminals seek to do. How the process has succeeded is best illustrated by the current Israeli government's policy of "mowing the grass" in Gaza where it is using army snipers to kill unarmed Palestinian protesters. Washington not only does not protest against the in-your-face war crime, it aids and abets it with U.S. Ambassador David Friedman justifying the military response as measured and appropriate.

Another area where Washington chooses to look the other way is regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to consist of two hundred warheads. Under U.S. law, any country that has an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal cannot obtain American-made weapons and cannot received aid of any type. Congress and the White House pretend that the Israeli nuclear arsenal does not exist, in spite of the fact that the Israelis themselves have more than once implicitly acknowledged it and instead of cutting aid to Israel have instead increased it. It is currently $3.8 billion per year guaranteed for the next ten years, with extra money also available if needed. No other country benefits from such largesse and gives in return so little.

To be sure, the groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, which appeared in 2007, pulled no punches in describing how the Israel Lobby operates in the United States. It also made clear that the relationship with Israel serves no United States national interest whatsoever and exists solely because of the corruption of the political system and the media by principally Jewish individuals and groups that are dedicated to that task.

While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests.

The British expose, in two parts, aired in January, and was based on discussions and interviews that took place between June and November 2017. It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).

The secret recording revealed how an Israeli Embassy diplomat/spy named Shai Masot connived with a senior civil servant to get rid of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan, regarded as a supporter of an independent Palestinian state. To Masot's additional query "Can I give you some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?" the civil servant suggested " if you look hard enough, I'm sure there is something that they're trying to hide a little scandal maybe." Another alleged pro-Arab member of Parliament Crispin Blunt was also identified and confirmed to be on a "hit list."

It was also learned that Masot had been secretly subsidizing and advising two ostensibly independent groups, the parliamentary Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Masot did, however, express concern that Israel's control over incoming parliamentarians was not quite what it used to be: "For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They're not doing that any more in the Labour Party. CFI, they're doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in the last elections did it automatically."

The documentary was initially a sensation in Britain but then, predictably, it went away as Israel's loyal host of media scriveners took charge. Masot was recalled to Israel and Prime Minister Teresa May, as good a friend to Jewish money and power as one is likely to find, decided to do nothing. Her characteristically toothless reaction to the suggestion that her government officials might be removed by the clandestine activity of a foreign country was: "The Israeli ambassador has apologized the U.K. has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed."

The four-part series by al-Jazeera on the Lobby in the U.S. was meanwhile temporarily spiked because the Qatari government was seeking to obtain the mediation of prominent American Jews to pressure the White House to help resolve its outstanding conflict with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The documentary has remained in limbo but in the past two weeks it has surfaced and is now available . Its undercover investigative journalist, a British Jew named Tony Kleinfeld, quickly charmed his way into the inner circle of Israel's supporters where he discovered a network of organizations that act as fronts for the Israeli government. Their activities include spying on supporters of Palestinian rights and disrupting demonstrations, with a particular focus on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which Israel has particularly targeted. They also resorted to tactics like smearing critics by generating false accusations of sexual and personal misconduct, all of which was coordinated by Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The ministry's director general is Sima Vaknin-Gil , a former senior officer with Israel's military intelligence , and is staff consists mostly of former spies drawn from Israel's various security agencies.

Later, Kleinfeld became involved with The Israel Project , which is a U.S. based Israeli government backed propaganda organ that claims to be "a non-partisan American educational organization dedicated to informing the media and public conversation about Israel and the Middle East."

In a recorded conversation, Project employee Jordan Schachtel, explained the objectives and extent of a secret Facebook operation. "We're putting together a lot of pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren't The Israel Project's channels. So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate with. That's why it's a secretive thing, because we don't want people to know that these side projects are associated with The Israel Project."

In another episode, the Israel on Campus Coalition's Jacob Baime, who claimed to have a $2 million budget, described coordinating with the Israeli government, with an approach "modeled on General Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq copied a lot from that strategy that has been working really well for us, actually" using "offensive information operations." Baime described putting "up some anonymous website" along with targeted Facebook ads so that critics "either shut down or they spend time responding to it and investigating it, which is time they can't spend attacking Israel. It's psychological warfare, it drives them crazy."

Kleinfeld also met with other groups. Foundation for Defense of Democracies was revealed as yet another agent of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, its directors meeting regularly with Israeli Embassy staff in Washington. In spite of that the Treasury Department has not compelled it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is also registered with the IRS as a tax exempt 501(c)3 "charity." Indeed, no Jewish organization active on behalf of Israel has ever had to register under FARA and most are classified as tax exempt charities or educational foundations. Interestingly, however, the FDD's Jonathan Schanzer lamented in his recorded conversation with Kleinfeld that "anti-Semitism as a smear is not what is used to be."

In another bizarre episode, Kleinfeld visited the neocon dominated Hoover Institute in California where he participated in a demonstration together with a group of bored young conservative think tankers compelled by their professors to protest against a Students for Justice in Palestine conference. The think tank fellows admit that they were "astroturfing" – rent-a-crowd activism to make a small demonstration appear much larger.

Another segment includes Israeli Lobby financier Adam Milstein, who is reported to be the principal funder of Canary Mission, which has targeted some 1,900 students and academics in its profiles since 2015 , smearing them as "racist," "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic." Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, boasts in the film that "Canary Mission is highly, highly effective to the extent that we monitor the Students for Justice in Palestine and their allies."

In his recording, Milstein also talks about the need to "investigate" and "expose" critics of Israel, who Milstein claims are anti-Semites, as well as "anti-Christian" and "anti-freedom" activists who "terrorize us." His foundation also funds numerous anti-Palestinian organizations, including the Israel on Campus Coalition , StandWithUs , CAMERA , the AMCHA Initiative and the FDD . Milstein also funds and is chairman of the board of the Israeli-American Council. An Israeli-born California based real estate developer, Milstein reportedly served time in federal prison after a 2009 conviction for tax evasion.

An Israeli spy at the University of California at Davis, Julia Reifkind also described to Kleinfeld how the system worked at the campus level. She used multiple fake Facebook accounts to monitor the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine. "I follow all the SJP accounts. I have some fake names. My name is Jay Bernard or something. It just sounds like an old white guy, which was the plan. I join all these groups." The information she obtained was then passed on to her contact in the Embassy for forwarding on to Israel to be entered into their data base of enemies.

So, Israel was engaging in interfering in legitimate political activity and also generating fake news on the social media in both 2016 and 2018, the same accusation that has been leveled against Moscow, but Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems curiously uninterested. And beyond the al-Jazeera revelations, there is also the evidence that it was Israel that sought favors from the incoming Trump Administration in 2016, not Russia. So who was actually corrupting whom?

And then there are the more overt Israeli front groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its $100 million annual budget and 200 employees, as well as the other special arrangements to pander to Israel and the powerful American Jews who have made it their mission to use the U.S. government as a mechanism to protect and nurture Israel. Last week in Los Angeles $60 million was raised by Hollywood's finest for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), "Their Job is to Look After Israel. Ours is to Look After Them," the website proclaims. Last month, an additional $32 million was raised for the IDF in New York City. Donations are tax exempt, to support the armed forces of a country that is currently engaged in war crimes and that has a secret nuclear arsenal.

So, Israel was technically speaking not running in the 2018 election, but it was very much in the race. Jewish Democrats are already boasting how the presence of a couple of Israel critics in the House, who will be "reeducated" on the Middle East, will make no difference, that the party will be solid for the Jewish state with more Jewish congressmen than ever before. Indeed, the "special relationship" bond will be stronger than ever. Five committee chairmanships in the House of Representatives will be in the hands of passionate Israel firsters, including Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel at Foreign Affairs. On the Republican side, the House is already 100% in Israel's pocket. And as part of the White House team we have John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Donald Trump's Ambassador to Israel David Friedman expressed the dual loyalty phenomenon best in a recent speech . The United States is his "country of citizenship" but Israel is the country he "loves so much."

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org .

Baxter , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:49 am GMT

Gosh, I don't know where to start. By God, Giraldi, you said a mouthful. Even two mouthfuls. Where do we begin? I don't know. I am not a 'anti-Semite' or anti-Jew. As a matter of fact my girlfriend for four years was Jewish. That's another story.

There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first to go. Next?

Mark James , says: November 13, 2018 at 8:08 am GMT
While I don't live in Va I was hoping for wins from congressional candidates Abigail Spanberger and Leslie Cockburn. Unfortunately Cockburn was handed a defeat and while she was probably always a longshot it undoubtedly didn't help that the journalist was questioned about a book she co-authored in the 90′s (which I read).

The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US (Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for you.

Anonymous [172] Disclaimer , says: November 13, 2018 at 8:44 am GMT

The list of prominent politicians "taken down" by Israel is lengthy

True, and yet, we're getting bombarded by "Kremlin influence" narratives 24/7.

LondonBob , says: November 13, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT
Sadly Crispin Blunt was taken down as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and replaced by execrable arch neocon and descendant of German Jews Tom Tugendhat. Blunt had authored reports criticising government actions in Libya and Syria and was looking to investigate the influence of lobbies on British policy in the Middle East.
Z-man , says: November 13, 2018 at 9:49 am GMT

The list of prominent politicians "taken down" by Israel is lengthy, and includes Cynthia McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William Fulbright, Roger Jepsen, and Pete McCloskey.

I'm trying to think of a more recent example to make this point more relevant today and I can only come up with Chuck Hagel even if it was done with velvet gloves.

mark green , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:46 am GMT
No matter what sort of war crime Israel commits, no matter what level on interference crypto-Israeli donors and partisans inject into America's political landscape, the Zionist nexus inside our civilization is now so embedded and untouchable that its operatives can openly suborn US lawmakers while other Zionists initiate war (or use US power to do so) against rising Mideast countries that Israel wants weakened, divided, or crushed.

Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria and Khadaffy's Libya discovered this the hard way.

Despite these slick machinations, there are few public protests, (((Media))) examinations, or movements inside America that effectively oppose/thwart Israeli violence or the shrewd interference by Zionists in every US election since LBJ.

Why?

No one dares.

This, despite 1) Israel's possession of a rogue nuclear stockpile along with 2) Israel's multi-decade campaign to expel or subjugate its native population of non-Jews, 3) Israel's ongoing acquisition of territory by force and 4) Israel's trigger-happy propensity to annihilate (or harness US power to do so) any surrounding non-Jewish peoples (or nation) which poses a potential "existential threat"to the Jewish state. (Palestine, Lebanon, Iran are you listening?)

Not only do American taxpayers subsidize and protect affluent Israel above beyond every other nation in world history, but this oddball US commitment to the Zionist State is granted without precondition. That's right. It's unconditional. Israel's extraordinary political privilege is astoundingly unique and uniquely dangerous.

Despite this political anomaly, in no US election (including the last one) is Zio-Washington's 'special relationship' with nuclear-ready Israel ever an issue. Not one. Compare this to Washington's wild, unhinged obsession with Iran's non-nuclear stockpile of weapons. America's irrational fear of Iran is an exotic delusion that's been cooked up by Zionists. Like Iraq and Libya before it, Iran is slated for dismemberment. So stay tuned to your TVs for the latest news!

America's arranged but artificial marriage to the Zionist cause benefits Israel. Immensely. At the same time, it's cost us trillions. Trillions. Oil embargos, annual billion-dollar aid packages, along with winless, trillion-dollar wars do gradually add up. Yet political dissent remains muted. Taboo.

Anti-Semitism! (hush.) Meanwhile, America's pro-Zionist news and entertainment industries simplify, amplify, enable, and solidify Israel's near-sacred status. No accident. You've heard the stories. You've heard the speeches. You've seen the films. You've visited the museums.

Israel's unique untouchability allows it to rise above international constraints (with the assistance of Zio-Washington and (((Big Media))) as it conducts military operations (and acts of war) that violate US laws, the UN Charter, as well as the Geneva Conventions. Shouldn't this matter?

Certainly. But supreme victims enjoy supreme privileges.

Today, a tiny foreign power steers and shapes the policies and mindset of the world's most powerful civilization. No small feat. No small threat.

Jeff Stryker , says: November 13, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@Anonymous

Yep, Indian-Americans have not read it and do not seem that interested in Jews. Neither do Iranians. Catholics, which means Irish and Italians on the East Coast and Latinos everywhere, do not seem to much care about Israel either.

Blacks in the US do not seem to much love Jews or care about Israel at all with the Muslim lunatic fringe of Farrakan etc. deeply disliking them.

Apparently Evangelical Protestants of various sects love Jews for theological reasons and these people seem to have the smallest piece of the pie these days.

Chinese, Indians, Iranian Muslims etc either are indifferent or detest Israel and yet they seem to be doing better than the whites in the "bible belt".

Though a good number of rednecks who grew up singing old testament hymns would say that Jews deny their savior and don't worship Jews.

jt , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:03 pm GMT
@Z-man Charles Freeman. His nomination to the NSC blocked by the Israeli lobby. Brilliant guy, career foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador.
Grahamsno(G64) , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
Ultra liberal Hollywood just held a fundraiser for the Israeli Military!! Americans are shameless revolting whores.
Wally Streeter , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT
American politicians love Israel because it legitimizes their own corruption. They can be bought and paid for political whores without having to hide it. As soon as anyone points out that they are selling out their own country, they can recite the magic "anti-semitism" incantation to make the criticism go away.
wayfarer , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
Judaism is nothing more than a "service-to-self" ideology, characterized by negative concepts (e.g. greed, selfishness, etc.) and incapable of forgiveness. It's absolutely immiscible with any form of a "service-to-others" ideology.

source: https://www.lawofone.info/synopsis.php

Ken Doll , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial law and that was that. Congress degenerated into a crooked pedo playpen with a single function: deciding matters beneath CIA's notice with legalized peculation.

The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in Syria. This latest, possibly terminal, failure has spurred a frenzy of finger-pointing. When CIA wrecked Vietnam they blamed the Pentagon (see Prouty's The Secret Team) and everybody fell for it. But now with Syria, CIA pretended the Jews made them do it. That failed the laugh test, so now they're framing Amway shitstain Eric Prince.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-12/2bn-saudi-plan-assassinate-iranian-officials-involved-erik-prince-and-trump

Just ask yourself, would any of this stuff have happened without CIA's approval?

Jeff Stryker , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT
@Anonymous "Take another survey"

Another words walk up to any Chinese-American (The ones in California have been in the US longer than most East Coast ethnic whites like the Italians) or Indian-Americans and ask them what they know or care to know about Jews or Israel. They will say zero.

You'd get something genuinely negative from the Iranian Muslim community out in Los Angeles. And also a good number of blacks.

Hispanics know little about Israel. Did not stop Cubans from taking over Miami.

I don't know what you define as a "real American".

And I am not Indian. Not in the slightest.

Johnny Walker Read , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States. I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc.

https://www.sott.net/article/399738-The-Lobby-USA-Watch-the-film-the-Israel-lobby-has-tried-to-suppress-UPDATE-Parts-3-4-released

Wade , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:40 pm GMT
@Baxter It's more than just a moneyed lobby that has pulled this off for the past 100 years in america. Much more. The Jewish mafia was heavily involved from the earliest days of the 20th century. I highly recommend you all listen to this interview with Jeff Gates, someone who has as many qualifications as any of the authors on Unz.com to talk about the Jewish lobby. The youtube interviews with Jeff Gates are essential listening:

I wish I could find the quote but Jeff Gates thinks Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is light weights. Somewhere he makes the comment "anyone who compares the Jewish Lobby to other lobbies [like the dairy lobby] as if the Jewish Lobby happens just to be a little more effective than the rest is missing the point of the exercise here."

Anonymous [272] Disclaimer , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
lol @ this article and these comments. Love the tears! Never was there a more deserving group of people to feel dejected and demoralized.

I think the most hilarious part though was this one:

In fact, Americans have never had the option of voting on the "special relationship" that Israel enjoys with the United States as no Congressman would dare run against it lest they be smeared in the media and find themselves running against an extraordinarily well funded opponent benefitting from large donations coming from out of state sources.

Public opinion polls have consistently, over decades, shown that Americans are pro-Israel. The only exceptions are blacks, far leftist whites, and Muslims, and even the first two are not overwhelmingly anti. The needle has hardly moved in decades.

Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and Presidential election for going on 40 years now, on whether US policy should be more pro-Iran and less pro-Israel, and they have constantly chosen, with more consistency than basically any other issue in that time period, to side with Israel. Complaining that there are -gasp- organizations with money involved in this issue, even some from -gasp- out of state , is hilarious and pathetic. Every issue in American politics has lobbyists and national money flying around like crazy – guns, abortion, you name it. And every side that loses in the court of public opinion says that they did so because of 'out of state' money, even when they have more of it. Giraldi worked in government so he knows it, but why have an honest perspective when you can enrage the hive?

You really can't come up with a more thorough rejection by the American people of a political position than they have delivered, decade after decade, to the anti-Israel side. The only side less popular than Iran lackeys in American discourse might be NAMBLA, and even that is a close call.

America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers, and Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.

Philip Giraldi , says: November 13, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous Bullshit. Americans are only "pro-Israel" because that is all they hear from the media and the politicians. And that is because Jews control the media and the politicians.
Bragadocious , says: November 13, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came from none other than Hillary Clinton. I especially liked this line:

Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

They may want to rethink that one, as Israel fails pretty much all tests of the behavior of a democratic nation, starting with being a democracy in the first place.

To think that Hillary, along with her fellow travelers like Victoria Nuland, are the arbiters of what is or isn't anti-Semitism is quite a laugh.

annamaria , says: November 13, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Anonymous The word has been spoken: Judeo-Nazism

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181112-chomsky-echoes-prominent-israeli-warns-of-the-rise-of-judeo-nazi-tendencies-in-israel/

Sean , says: November 13, 2018 at 4:58 pm GMT
Israel is just getting itself deeper and deeper into a quandary about what to do with the Arabs in the occupied territories. They cannot be given full rights and there is not the unsettled land to give them the state everyone including America pretends is going to be the outcome of a temporarily stalled process. Israel is greasing the skids to disaster.
Reuben Kaspate , says: November 13, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT
@Philip Giraldi

Indeed, bullshit! Why do you love Palestinians so much or conversely, dislike/hate Israelis in equal measure?

Is it really the treatment of Christians of Arab origin in Judea and Samaria that really galls you but won't say it out loud? If Jews are as powerful as you claim they are, then why not just give them the Southern Lebanon, the Bekka Valley, the Gaza strip and the Sainai Peninsula and ten billion dollars a year, which would be just a drop in the bucket, to live us alone?

Why not resettle the most educated of all Arabs, the Palestinians, in other Arab nations, and there're so many lands to choose from, but especially, Saudi Arabia to help those gluttonous Afro-Semitic morons? Why egg on the Palestinians without hope, to the discomfort of all humanity by giving the Jews the very excuse to hammer the world with the exaggerated accusations of anti-Semitism? Why prolong what is inevitable and how does it benefit, the people on whose behalf you are fuming?

lavoisier , says: Website November 13, 2018 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Anonymous

As I said above, maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers, Borats, Farrakhans, and blue-hairs. Look at who your articles attract – do you think Americans like those people?

Most Americans are totally ignorant of the evil that has been done to their nation and the West by Zionist Jews.

Most Americans are completely ignorant about the extent Zionist Jews control the government of the United States and the media.

Most Americans know nothing about the role played by Zionist Jews in the mass murders perpetrated by the communists in Russia and China.

Most Americans take the holocaust as gospel and believe the Jews have never harmed anyone but have been the victims of the worst genocide in history.

Do not use the ignorance of the average American to claim that criticism of Zionist Jews is irrational.

It is totally rational and justified.

Wizard of Oz , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Philip Giraldi It is slightly amusing is it not to find that specious intervener illustrating part of your case by appearing as Anonymous [272] and Anonymous [279] just a breath apart ..?

What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?

Maccabi , says: November 13, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
@RobinG He is known to be an Islam hater thus unconditional support for Israel. This remark in itself is a proof how Israel is used to inflict havoc on the Islamic civilization. Jews are the biggest beneficiaries of demonization of Islam. The mercenary terrorist army of CIA/Mossad is called Islamic state.
schrub , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:34 pm GMT
@Z-man Liberal Republican Senator Chuck Percy's takedown was particularly egregious and revealing.

He lost his position despite his popularity in Illinois politics. The deep pockets of The Lobby and its control of the media (and the Republican Party) were simply too much for him to counter.

After his senatorial defeat in 1985, The Lobby must have felt that an example must be made of him. He then became a total nonperson both in politics and in the Washington DC social scene which he chose to continue to reside in. He never spoke again (to my knowledge) before any significant Republican Party event. In fact, his very name became a virtual dirty word in Republican circles, right up there with the names of convicted child molesters or embezzlers. Arch-Zionist Ronald Reagan enforced this shunning up until the end of his presidency.

Percy was no longer invited to appear in the mainstream media or speak before business or academic groups. He simply disappeared.

Poof, like he had never been there in the first place.

When he died in 2011, many people In Washington were surprised. They had assumed he has died decades before because of his blacklisting and the resulting invisibility.

Senator J. William Fulbright, a one-time icon of the left wing because of his opposition to the Vietnam War was also quickly disposed of after he tried to oppose The Lobby and found his left wing "friends" (along with their contributions) deserting him in droves.

Al this happened because they tried to be very slightly impartial about Israel.

chris , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and Presidential election for going on 40 years now, , and they have constantly chosen, with more consistency than basically any other issue in that time period, to side with Israel.

If that's true, then why are they spending such enormous sums of money to buy all of Congress ? If the thing runs by itself, then why on God's green earth, does it need such constant greasing of the skids ? Grant Smith of IRmep, who studies the financial pooling of something like 200 Jewish organizations in the US, estimates I that together, they're collecting money on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars from their diaspora and lunatic Christian sects. This money is then used to buy Congress lock stock and barrel and then to force it, among other things, to sign over billions in "aid" to Israel.

You poor child, were you not aware of any of this ? And you just thought the sniveling prostrations and groveling our elected "leaders" perform each year at the AIPAC conference or on their campaigns is all spontaneous ? Dear, dear, there is better quality acting at the AIPAC conference than there ever was at any Oscar show or in any therein nominated film.

chris , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:56 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Face it, Israel is no different. Both sides are mustering money and influence, and you lost fair and square in the court of public opinion.

Oh, but you might have the perspective a tad off; the fight may be just beginning.

It may be that in the past, Israel's friends might well have exercised power which easily swung in their direction, but there may not have been much at stake for everyone else. Maybe the fight wasn't worth it if you disagreed, but there could come a time when the balance sheet of liabilities might begin to swing in the other direction. I sincerely hope you'll maintain your sportsmanship attitude when that time comes, as it inevitably always does.

exiled off mainstreet , says: November 13, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT
It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-Semitism even against those who don't deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial nature of the Anglosphere.
pensword , says: November 13, 2018 at 11:47 pm GMT
@Anonymous Face it, Israel is no different.

Uh huh.

I don't recall the chief beneficiary of any other lobby helping to lie America into a war with muslims that has since metastasized into pandemic proportions. I also don't recall any other lobby beneficiary running interference for one of its compatriots who happened to inflict the worst damage to American intelligence in its history. Come to think of it, this very same beneficiary has been caught repeatedly committing espionage against America ~ a crime which, if committed by any other actor, would warrant severe punishment ~ yet received no punitive consequences for it.

Yeah. I'd say Israel is different.

Sir Launcelot Canning , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:07 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet But, as you admit, they are FACTS. And, as such, must be disseminated to the uninformed and ignorant Americans.

If it does cause anti-Semitism, which is becoming as meaningless term as racism, how are the Anglos at fault? Whose behavior is going to cause this resentment and blowback? Its certainly not the British! The British haven't been colonial for quite awhile.

However the USA has become a colonial vassal for Israel. So who is the imperial power now?

anarchyst , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:10 am GMT
@pensword

You are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that "foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their nuclear facilities.

Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as "agents of a foreign government" as required by American law.

Israel is indeed a "special case".

redmudhooch , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:46 am GMT
Mr. Giraldi gets it.

Be sure to watch The Lobby USA to see how treacherous our illegitimate govt. has become. It gives you an idea of how these 6,000,000 Jewish lobbies work around the clock spying on, blackmailing, subverting our govt. here in occupied America. They're letting these agents of a hostile and repressive govt. (Israel) run around the US spying on Americans, using blackmail, extortion, threats, violating their Constitutional rights. Nobody in Washington seems to care. How long before Israel is assassinating American citizens for exercising their rights?

Sheldon Adelson was at the White House watching the results of the midterm elections with his puppet Trump, eating pizza, "mini" hotdogs, and burgers. No joke. He's started his own lobby called IAC – Israeli American Council, thats even more extreme that AIPAC.

All traitors, all loyal to Israel. Republicans are owned by the Zionists and war profiteers folks. Democrats not any better. All traitors.

Sad!

JLK , says: November 14, 2018 at 1:00 am GMT
As the British were bankrupted by an unnecessary war with Germany, the "New American Century" isn't shaping up very well two decades in. 6T in additional debt from fighting Middle Eastern wars for Israel is the biggest reason why, and there is no end in sight.

I actually don't think Israel has that much genuine organic political support among Americans. It is all held together with media-fed illusions and threats.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 14, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker ' Palestinians themselves don't care about the plight of whites in bad cities in the US or the Muslims causing problems in Europe.'

Nae doot however, Palestinians are not funding and making possible either the condition of whites in the US or the difficulties of Muslims in Europe.

We pursue -- as no doubt most nations at most times do -- in innumerable short-sighted, callous, selfish, or just witless policies.

Our support for Israel is the one inarguably evil act we commit, and one for which we will -- at a minimum -- have to do penance.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 14, 2018 at 1:10 am GMT
@Cal Eyefornia 'I agree with you. Lots of anti-Semitic nonsense on this site, e.g. "where are all the millions buried?" (How about: all over Europe and Russia, cretins.) While the number of Jews murdered by Nazis may be, say, half of the "official" figure (still horrific), the lunatic fringe here won't provide their own figure (likely because they think it's zero). They actually believe Hitler was a nice guy and every Jew in the world is a member of the "Jew Illuminati." They think Israel bosses the USA around, and is the world's big dog that wags the tail. They laughably point to people like Henry Ford and anti-Semitic sites like codoh.com as "unbiased" sources for debate. They all need to "get a life."'

Well, Israel does boss the US around, and is inarguably one of the world's 'big dogs,' which, for a nation the size of Honduras or Togo, does call for an explanation.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 14, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet 'It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-semitism even against those who don't deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial nature of the Anglosphere.'

Nu? The Holocaust increased bigotry directed at Germans, and Pearl Harbor didn't do much for the popularity of Japanese.

Compared to these two groups, Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of their chosen evil. It'd be damned strange if they didn't wind up having to pay.

Jeff Stryker , says: November 14, 2018 at 1:42 am GMT
@Tyrion 2 Jews don't possess military power. They possess the benefit of a verbal dexterity and business savvy that allows them to network in order to control banks and media.

You cannot conquer. You can only manipulate.

It is the difference between Mike Tyson threatening to kick your ass and Charles Manson hypnotizing you.

Justsaying , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:29 am GMT
@anon

The Unites States of America is effectively owned and controlled by Jews

How about The US of A is effectively colonized by the Zionists ?

All the noise and nonsense about Russian interference in American elections pale in comparison to decisions on America's elected reps right to the President requiring Zionist approval before they can win their seats. The control is total and absolute. This coming from a country which depends on our tax dollars to maintain their criminal activities. And now the push is on for WWIII forcing us to brinkmanship with the Russians in Syria and Europe. This is an unprecedented abdication of US sovereignty.

Jeff Stryker , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:39 am GMT
@Colin Wright Penance?

Europeans bore the brunt for US invasions of Iraq that ultimately created the power-vacuum that unleashed refugees.

The US itself was too far away. That is simple geography. Muslims could not sail the Atlantic just as Latinos cannot get to Europe.

Only white Americans give two shits about Israel or the plight of Palestine. No Hispanic could find it on a map and no Asian-American would care.

A great deal of the problem is that whites can be made to give a shit. Asians cannot. Hindus cannot. Latinos cannot.

Matthew/Boston , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:53 am GMT
@redmudhooch redmudhooch,

I can't read all the responses, but I caught yours.

Look at it this way. 537 politicians in Washington, DC know 9-11 was a zionist jewish operation and not a word out of any of them. Maybe a few are slow or hopelessly naive about israel, so bump that number down to, say, 530. And again, not a peep.

537 of our "leaders" know israel was behind 9-11 yet they gave Netanyahu the record for standing ovations during a speech. Think of how profound that fact is. Pure traitors.

Chistopher Bollyn once mentioned the point that not one college or high school has a course or class on what subject is the 9-11 attacks. Suspicious, isn't it?

Jeff Stryker , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:28 am GMT
@Anonymous When do you EVER see Jewish missionaries trying to convert people? I've seen Mormons and Catholics overseas trying to convert people. But not Jews. When Jews do convert locals it is for pussy-some ancient handful of males settle somewhere like Ethiopia or Italy and marry local women. But it is not for salvation. Only for their pussies.

Part of this is empathy. The Christian sees the poor and disenfranchised and wants to assist. The Korean shopkeeper in a black ghetto does not give a shit what the blacks believe in and just wants his money.

annamaria , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:36 am GMT
@Anonymous " maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers.."

– Why don't we start with the "optics" of Jewish Bolsheviks and their murderous hatred towards Russians and Russian culture? Millions died in the labor camps (run and "improved" by the Jewish administrators, see Naftali Frenkel), in the chambers of secret police (see Yagoda and Berman), and in the villages of Ukraine and Kazakhstan during Holodomor (courtesy of certain Kaganovich).

The most important "deniers" of today are Nuland-Kagan (the organizer of pro-neo-Nazi putsch in Ukraine), Knesset (the provider of Ukrainian neo-Nazi with Israel-made rifles), and the zionized US Congress that has been supporting the neo-Nazi-infested Ukranian government.

And do not forget the profiteering and amoral ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center that both refused to support the Conyers amendment: "If passed, Conyers' amendment would have explicitly barred those found to have offered "praise or glorification of Nazism or its collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar symbols" from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense. The ADL and Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers' proposal." https://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-lobby-protected-ukrainian-neo-nazis

The Nuland-Kagan' brigade: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-13/separatists-are-not-people-explosive-ap-footage-ukrainian-far-right-summer-camp

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel

P.L. 115-141, the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
· $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
· $705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92 million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
· $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
· $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
· $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
· $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
· The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019.

For FY2019, the Trump Administration is requesting an additionl $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the first year of the new MOU. The Administration also is seeking $5.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) funding for humanitarian migrants to Israel.

TheBoom , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:24 am GMT
Israeli and American Jewish actions detailed in the article make perfect sense when you come to realize that the US is no longer a sovereign nation at its core. The US only has a facade of being one.

The facade is starting to crumble both because of the internet and Jewish arrogance. Consequently, the goys are the beneficiaries of more censorship of bad thoughts. The plan is to use increased censorship to prevent the facade from crumbling sufficiently to expose the reality to the masses. Any empire wants to keep its colonies in line

tac , says: November 14, 2018 at 7:54 am GMT
@Anonymous

America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers, and Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.

It seems apparent that you took exception (a sudden high blood pressure alert is making you post this response?) to my expose on the role of Jewish slavery [as the videos of Dr. Louis Farrakhan, who also happens to be AGAINST usury and in conjunction with PEACE--like most of Christindom] (and I did not even include the Roman/Greek periods and the hand that was attributed to the Jewish predominant role in slavery). But do continue because . it will expose this inhumane dominance of slavery–just like it still exists today.

RE (original reference included here):

Why do the supremacist Jews refuse to take accountability in their role for slavery?:

Educate yourself here:

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/#comment-2615210

and here:

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/#comment-2615278

Skeptikal , says: November 16, 2018 at 12:49 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

"What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?"

Not sure what you are on about. Iraq was a secular state until invaded by the USA, which churned things up politically . Syria has traditionally been a tolerant state that was home to one of the oldest Christian commujities, and a number of different Islamic groups. Libya was a secular state–no state religion in Libya that I know of.

It is the US and Zionist ally, Saudi Arabia, that is the most religiously intolerant state in the ME and also the biggest exporter of religious fanaticism.

Israel is the only [Religious designation] State in the ME -- no, in the whole world. I am unaware of the existence of a Christian State, an Islamic State (except the caliphate), a Buddhist State, a Zoroastrian State. Israel is the most intolerant state on the planet.

ChuckOrloski , says: November 16, 2018 at 2:42 am GMT
@SolontoCroesus Hey SolontoCroesus!

Ben Norton & guys like you give me hope that our country could still become saved by "facts and a timeline."

As you know, Israeli crimes foisted upon upon the divided-Homeland, including unnecessary, immoral, & ruinously expensive wars against "rogue/foes," for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and likely soon Iran, NEVER NEVER NEVER require presentation of solid evidence to dumb-goyim trained 'Merkins.

Disgusting. Embarrassing. A Yinon Plan underway for the USA! Ycch. I am pissed.

Along with partner Corporate Media-conspirators, The New York Times editorial board deserves instant "regime change" because of their theatrical complicity with our treasonous Zio Congress and Executive Branch.

Thanks, S2C.

renfro , says: November 16, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?

How typically ridiculous.

The reaction we should see would be to the statement that we will not support Israel as long as it occupies Palestine and discriminates against non Jews in Israel. Israel is a midget Nazi state not a democracy.

JC1 , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
@anon Mr Girardi didn't mention Jim Trafficante or JFK.
Hiram of Tyre , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:51 am GMT
Most fail to realize that Britain controls the US via Israel. Jews serve as pawns.
L.K , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
@Hiram of Tyre

Most fail to realize that Britain controls the US via Israel. Jews serve as pawns.

Pure nonsense.

The Israel network rules in Britain too.

[Nov 20, 2018] The problem is that if you look into eyes of Medusa you drop dead

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Durruti , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:27 pm GMT

@Ilyana_Rozumova "The problem is that if you look into eyes of Medusa you drop dead."

Is Medusa is a synonym for the Imperialist New World Order -- a horrible Devil which we may never confront?

[Nov 20, 2018] I love you Melania!! (Grin)

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Z-man , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:07 am GMT

@ChuckOrloski She did it!

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/416797-bolton-aide-exits-white-house-after-high-profile-clash-with-first

She has now singlehandedly mortally wounded walrus face Bolton. I love you Melania!! (Grin)

[Nov 20, 2018] Medusa's "hair" signifies the bad ideas coming out from women head. Did you notice how many women in US are engaging in politics?

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:20 am GMT

@Ilyana_Rozumova

To Durruti, Ilyana Rozumova wrote: "I am certain that you do not know this. Medusa's "hair" signifies the bad ideas coming out from women head. Did you notice how many women in US are engaging in politics?
.
US is doomed!!!!"

Broken Scranton greetings, I.R.

Taking off from your having mentioned "Medusa," & (with no pun), I do not know if you domicile in ZUSA, but linked below is a unique scene from Arnon Milchan's 1978 film, "The Medusa Touch."

The movie turns "bad hair day" when a Boeing 747 crashes into the Pan Am Building in NYC! Uh, where did Arnon Milchan get such precognitive inspiration?

Thanks, Ilyana, for all your work.

[Nov 20, 2018] No comments ;-)

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

eah , says: November 13, 2018 at 8:29 am GMT

[Nov 20, 2018] annamaria

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

November 13, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT

@Z-man The "wannabe Zionists (Bolton)" has been trying hard to show his loyalty to the Jewish State.

The latest tragicomic attempt by the mustached "person of easy morals": "John Bolton Says "No Evidence" Implicating Crown Prince On Khashoggi Kill Tape" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-13/john-bolton-says-no-evidence-implicating-crown-prince-khashoggi-kill-tape

Comment section (David Wooten): "According to the crown prince himself, Trump's [Jewish] son-in-law gave him a secret list of his enemies -- the ones like Al Aweed who were tortured and shaken down for cash. Khashoggi might even have been on that list.

One or more of the tortured ones likely tipped off Erdogan, which is why Turkey only needed to enter the consulate, retrieve the recorded audio device they planted, and walk out with the evidence. Turkey also has evidence that puts MbS' personal doctor and other staff arriving in Turkey at convenient times to do the job -- and probably more. Khashoggi was anything but a nice person but Trump cannot say that or he'll likely be accused of involvement in his murder.

Dissociation is made far more difficult by the fact that Jared is a long time friend of Netanyahu who, like Jared, has befriended MbS .

Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.

Were it not for the Khashoggi affair, fewer Republican seats would have been lost in the election."

-- Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any evidence .
These people -- Bolton, May, Gavin Williamson and likes -- are a cross of the ever-eager whores and petty brainless thieves. To expose themselves as the willing participants in the ZUSA-conducted farce requires a complete lack of integrity.

Of course, there is no way to indict the journalist's murderers since the principal murderer is a personal friend of Netanyahu and Jared.

Jump, Justice, jump, as high as ordered by the "chosen."

By the way, why do we hear nothing about Seth Rich who was murdered in the most surveilled city of the US?

Z-man , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:21 pm GMT
@annamaria A 1st grader can see that MbS was behind the murder of Kashoggi.

Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.

I've been hoping for this since they moved to Washington with 'big daddy'.

annamaria , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
@Anon " crappy bedtime reading the woolyheadedness "

Hey, Anon[436], is this how your parents have been treating you? My condolences.

If you feel that you succeeded with your "see, a squirrel" tactics of taking attention from the zionists' dirty and amoral attempts at coverup of the murder of the journalists Khashoggi, which was accomplished on the orders of the clown prince (the dear friend of Bibi & Jared), you are for a disappointment.

One more time for you, Anon[436]: the firm evidence of MbS involvement in the murder of Khashoggi contrasts with no evidence of the alleged poisoning of Skripals by Russian government.

The zionists have been showing an amazing tolerance towards the clown prince the murderer because zionists need the clown prince for the implementation of Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz Israel.

The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the absence of any evidence , as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence . Thanks to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the treasonous Bolton.

Z-man , says: November 14, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@annamaria

The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the absence of any evidence, as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence. Thanks to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the treasonous Bolton.

Bears repeating.

[Nov 19, 2018] As history has proved, time and time again, when "literal fascists" take over your democracy, outlaw opposing political parties, and start shipping people off to concentration camps and revoking journalists' White House access, the only effective way to defeat them is to form a whole buttload of congressional committees and investigate the living Hitler out of them by C.J. Hopkins

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

OK, so, that was a close one. For a moment there, I was starting to worry that the Democrats weren't going to take back the House and rescue us from " the brink of fascism ." Which, if that had happened, in addition to having to attend all those horrible stadium rallies and help the government mass murder the Jews, we would have been denied the next two years of Donald Trump-related congressional hearings and investigations that we can now look forward to

I'm going to go ahead and call them the Hitlergate Hearings.

Staging these hearings has always been a crucial part of the Resistance's strategy. As history has proved, time and time again, when literal fascists take over your democracy, outlaw opposing political parties, and start shipping people off to concentration camps and revoking journalists' White House access, the only effective way to defeat them is to form a whole buttload of congressional committees and investigate the living Hitler out of them. This is especially the case when the literal fascists who have commandeered your democracy are conspiring with a shifty-eyed Slavic dictator whose country you have essentially surrounded with your full-spectrum dominant military forces, and who your media have thoroughly demonized, but who is nevertheless able to brainwash your citizens into electing his fascist puppet president with a few thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.

Once you've determined that has happened (which it obviously has), the gloves have to come off. No more prancing around in pussyhats, not with Russian Hitler in office! No, at that point, you really have no choice but to wait two years until your opposition party (which Hitler somehow forgot to ban) regains control of the House of Representatives (which Hitler somehow forgot to dissolve), wait another two months until they take office, and then immediately start issuing subpoenas, auditing Hitler's financial records, and taking affidavits from former hookers. I realize that may sound extreme, but remember, we're talking about literal fascists, backed by literal Russian fascists, who are going around emboldening literal fascism, and making literal fascist hand gestures on television, and doing all kinds of other fascist stuff!

... ... ...

ThreeCranes , says: November 20, 2018 at 3:10 am GMT

Photo of a typical Trump rally. Trump himself designed the grandiose, operatic setting and cast himself in the male lead as fiery, spittle-flecked orator/savior of his nation.


[Nov 19, 2018] Thanking Vets for Their Service -- Why by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... The impoverished countries of Ireland and Scotland along with the slums of London provided the bulk of the British Imperial Army ..."
"... "Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God." Matt 5:9 ..."
Nov 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

First, let's begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don't like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply "forget" it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one ! All the wars fought by the US since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called "American way of life," but only if one accepts that the said "American way of life" requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.

Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous "service" of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals. Yes, yes, I know -- there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the US had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the US. But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) -- this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the US, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, "thank" veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda.

In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question. I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did . In fact, with some slight variations , the principles of what is called a "just war" have been known in the West since at least Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. According to one source they are:

A just war can only be waged as a last resort . All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority . Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered . For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient -- see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success . Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace . More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered . States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants . Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Modern religions for war

(Check out this article for a more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)

Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of criteria, all the wars fought by the US are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust : all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan) fail on all of them!

But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars. Did you know that the ultimate crime under international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?

Robert H Jackson

Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war crimes. He wrote: " To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole ."

So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the crime of "aggression" does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression can be defined as the execution of any one of the following acts:

Declaration of war upon another State. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State. A naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State. Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions, every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)? How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?

Let's sum it up so far: we have folks who agree to become killers (or killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons , who then only participate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and whose commander in chief is a war criminal .

... ... ...

Major General Smedley Butler put it best when he wrote :

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.

If we agree that war is, indeed, a "racket" and that it is conducted "for the benefit of the very few" then it would make sense for these "very few" to express their gratitude to those whom they hired to enrich them. And, in fact, they do. Here is the best example of that:

Corporation for war (well, that at least makes sense!)

Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation. The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. The so-called "American way of life" but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won't be attempted for as long as the US remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind. But until that day arrives the "American way of life" will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only "sin" is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave to the Empire. If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes November 15, 2018 at 5:56 am GMT

Within this context one ought to mention the "Crime of Aggression":
"A Crime of Aggression is a specific type of crime where a person plans, initiates, or executes an act of aggression using state military force that violates the Charter of the United Nations. The act is judged as a violation based on its character, gravity, and scale.[1]

Acts of aggression include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression

The mandate to persecute for this crime was awarded to the ICC.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr1350

Of course quite some usual suspects refused to sign up including the US.

Realist , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT

Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one!

Totally agree.

Mario964 , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT
Killing for money.
Wasn't the Milgram experiment clear enough in shedding light on the reality of human nature?
Renoman , says: November 15, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT
99% of soldiers became soldiers because it was the best available job, it had nothing to do with patriotism or love of country. Puting them on a pedestal is an invention of politicians trying to glorify the job so as to suck in more soldiers.
The Cleaner , says: November 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
All this thanking is purely pro-forma bullshit. At every NBA game there is a halftime moment when some "hero among us" usually a veteran, is honored. More often than not he spent his time in the military in front of a computer screen in Nevada. I would bet that not a single one of all the thousands who attended these games could identify one of these "heroes among us" by name five minutes after they honored them. It's all empty ritual, a bitter fraud just like the rest of American public life.
Kiza , says: November 15, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
The most interesting in this topic is the dichotomy between the blatantly obvious that Saker writes about -- that US military person is the lowest level of a mercanairy that the World has ever seen, which most of the rest of the World is so acutely aware of and the military "service" taboo built in the US. Did Saker really need to explain that US military is only about killing of the defenders and their innocent? To who did this need explaining? To cretins such as Intelligent Dasein, who think that declaring himself pro-Russian gives him the high moral point to attack the messenger of his own emptiness (not all veterans can write Born on the 4th of July, can they?). Talk about "never learn anything"! This just shows how pointless this breaking of US taboos totally is. The World will continue on just as was before this article, the moral-less and mind-less US shitbags will keep joining the military racket "for scholarships" or some shyte like that until US ends up taking on some real "enemy" who will bring this taboo down but not with words then with "Kinetic Action" that will turn the tables on US shitbag military.

I have this mental image of US towns looking like Hiroshima with only this Stavro's Pizza advertisement still standing as a poignant reminder of the God himself having been recruited into the gang of its former military rapists and killers for profit and for pleasure.

ThreeCranes , says: November 15, 2018 at 1:45 pm GMT
@Realist I was going to use that quote as well.

Dissidents in 1968 justified their resistance to the war on just those grounds -- that the USA was not directly under attack and was not threatened by Vietnamese aggression. And went on to say that were the homeland of the USA threatened, then they would man up and defend their country. So, it's not that they were unpatriotic or cowards, it's that they would only fight a morally justifiable, defensive war.

Well, now the nation is under siege. Hordes of invaders swarm across our southern border like a plague of locusts. Hundreds of thousands are shipped here from Africa and the Middle East and dropped like cockroaches in our midst.

And where do the 1960′s protestors position themselves with respect to these threats to the homeland today? They meekly acquiesce. They stand down, shrivel and roll over. Now, when it is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, they still protest -- but in favor of the invaders.

Traitorous sh*theads.

mijj , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
basically, the US Government is a Mafia organization, and US Military Personnel are Mafia Thugs.
LG , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
I understand where the author is coming from. However, WHY does he continue to live in the US? His tax dollars are funding the war machine. Why not pick up and move elsewhere, for example Russia, in the case of the Saker?
Anonymous [607] Disclaimer , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT
@LG The reply to your answer is here: http://thesaker.is/why-do-i-live-in-the-usa
ThreeCranes , says: November 15, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein This seems incontestable:

"Are the powerful of the world going to just sit by and watch their fortunes be destroyed? Are the potentates of the Banana Republics that Smedley Butler campaigned in any different in their aims or any less ferocious in their means? No, of course not."

Tulip , says: November 15, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
One of the problems the West faces is the post-Nuremberg phenomenon.

The Nazis were scum, and they killed a lot of people, and they lost, and so most of the leadership got shot. It is what you call revenge, and it is this instinct when channeled becomes justice. I will not cry for Eichmann, even though he committed no crime, he got what he deserved.

Now, the West manufactured a load of bullshit to justify the result the West wanted (which was revenge), and now we are stuck with the bullshit, and people like Saker cite the bullshit to bad mouth America. Time to dump the bullshit, although the hordes of shitlibs who would kick and scream about it would be deafening.

Dutch Boy , says: November 15, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
@Tulip Just War doctrine is a handy guide for statesmen, inasmuch as wickedness is often also stupidity (our warmaking has mostly been an exercise in stupidity). Adherence to JW doctrine would have kept us out of most of our wars as well as mitigating some of the worst excesses committed by US forces in those wars.
ThreeCranes , says: November 15, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT
@flabergasted Building 7 collapsed out of a sense of desolation, having seen his two bigger companions bite the dust.
War for Blair Mountain , says: November 15, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT
Saker

I agree with you. But .

DON'T .blame the Working Class White Male Teenagers who are signing up .for they face what is basically this:the career opportunities of a slave ..they are "choosing" from a range of career choices available to a chattel slave effectively

The real criminals are the adults ..

Among other things .California's technological labor markets have been handed over to the Chinese and Hindu ."Americans" ..

JLK , says: November 15, 2018 at 9:37 pm GMT
The military people are a lot more decent in general than some of their civilian politico leaders. They deserve praise and veterans benefits.
Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 15, 2018 at 10:19 pm GMT
As long as US sees itself as globo-cop, its military men will not be seen as mercenaries but as centurions, Team America, to keep the order around the world.

Sometimes, US presence is stabilizing IF the US plays a disinterested neutral role as an impartial judge. But ever since Jewish Power took over the US, the US military is essentially a corrupt globo-cop that does the bidding of Kosher Nostra.

Mulegino1 , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:21 pm GMT

First, let's begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don't like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply "forget" it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Saner Americans hate war, but Hollywood loves it- particularly when war can be used as an instrument of Zionist propaganda, or to draw sympathy towards international Jewry and its enablers.
This has been the case since the First World War. Hymiewood has had a love affair with American foreign policy ever since Woodrow Wilson entered the "war to end all wars", for the single reason that American war policy has been international Jewish (and British) policy.

Rex Little , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:22 pm GMT
The fact that the US military stands ready to repel an armed invader makes it unnecessary for them to actually do so, and for that much they deserve thanks. But the last time a foreign power attacked the United States was 1812 (Hawaii wasn't a state during WW2).
Fidelios Automata , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:49 pm GMT
I won't bash the troops, but I won't thank them, either. Financial considerations aside, I believe that most of those who join do believe they're doing the right thing. Good intentions, however, don't bring the victims of unnecessary US wars back to life.
nsa , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:53 pm GMT
The Saker appears to be taking a lot of incoming fire for having a go at the sainted american soldier boy most of whom are dumb-full-of-cum twenty-something morons with no conception they are there to simply advance the megalomaniacal objectives of the insane bloodthirsty jooies. The dummy american service guy does the bombing of mostly civilians, the dummy american pols provide the cover, and the dummy american taxpayer picks up the tab. Since censorship by the vile jooie Cock Cutting Cult is near 100% in the good ole usa, there are very few forums where this view can be expressed.
raywood , says: November 15, 2018 at 11:05 pm GMT
Interesting article. There are some points that probably should have been supported with citations to research. For instance, I suspect the percentage of those who become police officers for reasons other than money is probably quite a bit higher than 1%. But overall, a very interesting, non-mainstream presentation.
nsa , says: November 16, 2018 at 3:50 am GMT
@Simply Simon Care to explain WTC Bldg 7? A few whiffs of smoke come out of it and down it goes. How about the initial pictures of the 20′ diameter hole in the Pentagon facade that a Boeing 757 supposedly caused? The wings, turbines, 40′ tall fin, bodies could not have fit through the 20′ hole, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the initial pictures. Care to concoct an explanation? Oh, that's right. Your hero Senor Freddie says the 20′hole was caused by some large round object lacking wings, a fin, turbines .possibly a giant flying burrito.
Da Wei , says: November 16, 2018 at 10:25 am GMT
"(T)he truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan)."

The deal between the government and the citizenry is a contractual agreement, so contract theory should apply. In respect to your cogent argument, here is my take on that application.

From Pearl Harbor to the phony Gulf of Tonkein Resolution through the ridiculous Domino Theory, 911 and WMD, right to the present there is a distinct element of fraud that invalidates the call to all the ensuing wars and that is Fraud in the Inducement. A contract is invalid if you are fraudulently induced to engage in it. That gives all GIs and citizens the moral right of redress against the government that lied them into war. It's been tried in court (USSC: Sullivan v McNamara) and didn't fly, because the SC sold out.

Governments are corrupt entities, but citizens are free moral agents. Your argument is correct: when you enlist you assign your moral agency and agree to be used by whomever you have submitted to. Smedley Butler is a true hero who went to the mountain and returned to lead people to truth: war is a racket.

I like this article. We need to cultivate a spirit of resistance to the bullshit that parades before us. It's a scam and we should be cautious of anyone in epaulets.

Johann , says: November 16, 2018 at 1:19 pm GMT
@Renoman Absolutely correct. The impoverished countries of Ireland and Scotland along with the slums of London provided the bulk of the British Imperial Army . These poor sods had the choice of starvation or a bloody battlefield death and they died by the millions in order to keep the ruling class rich. I will grant the British upper class officers a pass because so many of them died in the trenches because of their indoctrination in the "dulce et decora est" public school education.
The Alarmist , says: November 16, 2018 at 7:46 pm GMT
@Rex Little German U-Boats did a lot of sinkings up and down the Florida coastline in WW2, and put spies onshore on Long Island; both were close enough to call them an attack on The Homeland.
The Alarmist , says: November 16, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Rex Little

"None -- because of our military. If the Army, Navy and Air Force were to completely disband, any number of countries could land troops. Might have a hard time pacifying the whole country, but they could do a hell of a lot of looting."

Yeah, they're doing a bang-up job stopping the invasion at Tijuanna.

peterAUS , says: November 16, 2018 at 8:34 pm GMT
Overall, a good article, IMHO (save a couple of minor details which doesn't change the main points).

The crux, probably, is (slightly edited):

The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. The so-called "American way of life" but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won't be attempted for as long as the US remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind. But until that day arrives the "American way of life" will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only "sin" is to dare to not want to be a part of the Empire.

Now .there IS a point he carefully avoids along his usual angle "Bad Anglos". ALL Empires have done the same. That's the very definition of Empire. Hehe including his bellowed (from away, naturally, in USA of all places) Russia.

Gregory , says: November 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT
Nonsense.

But let's suppose that the US had no imperial military. So in that case, the US would face the "threat" (Americans' favorite word) of a Canadian, or Mexican, or Guatemalan, or Nicaraguan or Chinese! or Russian!! invasion?

Clearly, you have no idea of what the military invasion of a country really entails, nor have you any sense of what the consequences of such actions have been historically.

"Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens!"

JVC , says: November 16, 2018 at 10:04 pm GMT
@Jett Rucker It surprised me that the Saker did not acknowledge the millions of draftee's -- not just we who are of the Vietnam generation, but going back to the war of northern aggression. The military draft is akin to slavery, in that the other choices are jail or fleeing the country.

I don't need or want any thanks for my time in hell -- especially 40-50 years late. I was part of an obscene violation of another countries sovereignty, and some of what I did and saw still haunts me to this day. Many other vets I know feel the same way.

Aside from that one omission, Saker is pretty much spot on. Of course, as several commentators show, the truth is not always welcome. Smedly Butler is one of my military heroes for speaking truth to power. The so called war on terror is a wet dream come true for the mic we were warned about so many years ago

As for those out there who are still denying what was obvious to some on 9-11-2001, a new book out could be very enlightening. 9/11 Unmasked takes various aspects of the official "story" and presents the evidence that puts the lie to that "story" Read with an open mind if you dare.

Patricus , says: November 16, 2018 at 10:32 pm GMT
It is petty to identify all soldiers as active war criminals or as enablers. In this country the military actions are ordered by elected representatives. The military men obey the orders of civilian leaders. No doubt many question the wisdom of the orders given but they accept that it is not their decision where and when to fight. God help the world if decisions were made by military hierarchies.

Unfortunately effective military action requires hierarchies. If every soldier made his own tactical decisions a military force would be ineffective. Most would run or quit when the ordinance was incoming.

Many join the military because there are limited economic opportunities, and there are some who are rather dull and wouldn't fare well in market competition for labor. Don't we all find employment because we need some money and there are limited ways to earn. Personally I'd like to be an astrophysicist and spend my working days on interesting and fulfilling problems. It would also be pleasant if all tedious tasks were done by others. Alas the market for this profession is tiny. I had to work where there was a market for my services and I experienced plenty of drudgery including working for idiotic bosses.

The soldier or sailor lives in a kind of monastic order. He must obey the hierarchy even when these leaders are incompetent. He faces the possibility of death or serious injury even if he supplies soda machines on a ship. Some respect is due to one who accepts this discipline. He accepts, by his actions, the primacy of civilian control of war-making. He should be censored if he commits atrocities but can't be held accountable for political decisions by others.

Jeering at sargeants or lieutenants might feel good but it is a fatuous frame of mind. We always have needed soldiers and that is not going to change.

One legitimate post WW II action was the first Gulf War. Bush the elder received the congressional approval. At the time almost everyone believed there was finite oil in the world. Iraq invaded Kuwait then massed troops on the Saudi border. That was a threat to our perceived interests. Once Saddam was vanquished Bush had the sense to refrain from invading Iraq. I don't like Bush I much but he did the right things given the knowledge available at the time.

NoseytheDuke , says: November 17, 2018 at 1:53 am GMT
@Patricus Yes but wasn't it the US dominated proceedings that established the precedent that "just following orders" was an unacceptable defence and wasn't it a US dominated military coalition punishment that caused many thousands of deaths by starvation and exposure post WWII?

Why should the US get to have it both ways?

SeekerofthePresence , says: November 17, 2018 at 3:14 am GMT
"Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God." Matt 5:9
RadicalCenter , says: November 17, 2018 at 3:31 am GMT
@Johnny Rico Yes, you in particular should ignore the comment. Excellent screen name, though. Just read the Starship Troopers book for the first time earlier this year and enjoyed it thoroughly, though I was surprised how short it was. Would have liked a series of books along those lines.
Tulip , says: November 17, 2018 at 4:03 am GMT
@Kiza

until US ends up taking on some real "enemy" who will bring this taboo down but not with words then with "Kinetic Action" that will turn the tables on US shitbag military.

Yeah, I see them all lining up outside my house right now!

No, if America goes down, it will be from enemies within.

Hans Vogel , says: November 17, 2018 at 7:37 am GMT
Enirely concur with your lucid article. One might add (perhaps in another article), that for the simple reason of being an empire, the US is a violent rogue state. After all, empires are ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and peoples under permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence.

Here, an empire works exactly like a maffia family: the boss is the supreme authority deciding over life and death. Whoever stands up to him is annihilated, mutilated, or humiliated. In inverse order, these are the three stages of violence at the disposal of the boss. If he wants to preserve his authority, he is compelled to use these techniques, which makes him, in a sense also the victim of the system he represents.

So it is with the US empire. The leader in the White Madhouse has no choice but to export mass murder to all corners of the world. Not doing so would entail the collapse of the imperial system.

SafeNow , says: November 17, 2018 at 8:21 am GMT
And don't forget WTC Bldg 7, which was not hit by a fuel-leaking plane at all, and yet pancaked down just like the towers. And by the way, a BBC reporter reported the bldg 7 collapse occurred -- past tense -- 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse happened. Oops.
Kiza , says: November 17, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@Tulip I would not disagree with you completely, although I doubt that the Chinese and the Russians would have the foresight to finish off the US cesspool when given an internal chance.

But my main point was that the human-looking smelly excrement always calls upon the higher authority of God when doing the worst possible crimes. This is where US excells even over its Western "partners" -- the utilitarianism of religion -- that is employing God in the collective endeavours of rape, pillage and murder. This is the main reason I am anti-religious although not atheist at all.

"God bless you for your service of rape, pillage and murder for our shared profit and enjoyment."

Stop accusing the war profiteers for the wars and understand that it is the whole horrible society.

Hans Vogel , says: November 17, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
@Patricus The "First Gulf War" was as illegitimate and illegal an operation as all the other US acts of international piracy during the 20th century. Bush I is as much a war criminal as Bush II.

The entire First Gulf War was a set-up, a trap, designed to give the US a permanent foothold in the region. At the expense of thousands of human lives. During an interview the US diplomat April Glaspie had with Saddam immediately before he invaded Kuweit, she did not voice any objections to his designs. Thus Saddam was led to believe he could count on US support.

Yet mind you, I do not suggest Saddam would be a more decent person than either Bush II or his daddy. A guy like Saddam, who appoints as his official food taster the son of the palace cook is truly a perverted individual. And like most politicians in high office everywhere and at all times, he was also a psychopath and did not shirk from killing fellow human beings. Often for futile reasons.

The scalpel , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT
@Patricus "He must obey the hierarchy even when these leaders are incompetent. He faces the possibility of death or serious injury even if he supplies soda machines on a ship. Some respect is due to one who accepts this discipline. "

So a person voluntarily gives up his/her freedom of action and freedom to make moral choices and "some respect is due" ? You, sir, are a brainwashed fool and you deserve to be killed by one of these lazy, amoral, toadies. Your justification for these losers to join the military is because they lack the confidence and ability to feed themselves any other way and that they have such low levels of morality that they would gladly give up those crumbs for shit on a shingle?

And the "humans" (I use the term loosely) who do this are due respect? These lazy, amoral, shit eaters would gladly kill other people who have made the not so difficult choice to use their god-given skills and abilities to survive in a peaceful manner trying to avoid harming others.

I say better these these lazy, murderous, automatons, these moral mutants, this pestilence on the human race be enclosed in a stadium and encouraged to fight each other until they are all dead except one -- then castrate him/ (or her in the case of Hillary Clinton.)

I say people like you, Patricus, who ignorantly give them "due respect" should voluntarily live in an active war zone where you can experience first hand what the world would be like if your "heroes " were unrestrained. That would show them "due respect" instead of encouraging them to bring down their hell on peaceful other people you do not know or care about

Psycho killers , says: November 17, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/11/17/unhinged-decorated-navy-seal-to-stand-trial-for-war-crimes-in-iraq/

A few bad apples, tsk tsk tsk, and the government's systematic brutalization program will be cast in bad light.

[Nov 19, 2018] The US instigated coup was in line with Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" delusions of the US having to control Eurasia especially Ukraine in order to reduce Russia to the role of a regional power.

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

JR , says: November 15, 2018 at 8:20 pm GMT

@Quartermaster Even the German government friendly Der Spiegel begs to differ:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706.html

The US instigated coup was in line with Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" delusions of the US having to control Eurasia especially Ukraine in order to reduce Russia to the role of a regional power. The EU piggybacked on that coup by having the Maidan regime sign on to the European Neighborhood Policy thus reducing Ukraine to the role of a EU dependent non-member state.

http://www.imi-online.de/2016/03/10/expansion-association-confrontation/

[Nov 19, 2018] The way that WTC 7 is so strenuously avoided and brushed aside by the Establishment, and even by many commenters here, stinks

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT

@Frederick V. Reed "Regarding Nine-Eleven: Until someone who actually know the business of controlled demolition shows what specifically would have been needed, used how without being noticed, to produce the collapse, it will remain just another empty conspiracy theory."

I wonder if Fred's house burnt down under suspicious circumstances, e.g., there was some evidence that an accelerant was involved; and neighbors reported suspicious activity near the house before the fire started; and then Fred had the debris hauled away before it could be examined; and as a matter of public record Fred announced beforehand that his house might burn down; and Fred was known to be having financial problems; and Fred was caught telling a lie about the circumstances; and Fred sought to collect a huge insurance payment, etc.; would the state police fire marshal dismiss it all as an "empty conspiracy theory". I think not; rather, I think Fred would be in some serious trouble.

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@James Speaks "The burning jet fuel caused the floor trusses to sag."

No it didn't; most or all of the jet fuel burnt up in a cloud outside of the buildings.

By the way, as a threshold issue, if 9/11 was "legitimate" why did the perpetrators have to go through the trouble and take the risk of putting imposter Hymie Brown on national TV, falsely claiming him to be the "architect" and "project engineer" of the towers, and having him tell lies about the towers?

Low Voltage , says: November 17, 2018 at 8:34 pm GMT
@Frederick V. Reed The only interesting question remaining about 911 is whether the same group who planned the destruction of the twin towers also demolished WTC 7. Even though all three supposedly succumbed to fire, WTC 7 resembles a classic demolition while 1 and 2 exploded. These were obviously different techniques at work.

I began to wonder if some rival faction within the establishment demolished WTC 7 just to spoil the cover story for the Bin Laden angle for leverage in other areas, or the did the perpetrators themselves do it so the American people would have no plausible deniability when the day of reckoning finally comes? After all, what sort of infantile and wicked population could allow the crimes committed by its government after such a preposterous false flag operation? Surely, they deserve to be stripped of everything they have (especially Social Security ;).

Anon [218] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2018 at 9:47 pm GMT
@SafeNow "And don't forget WTC Bldg 7, which was not hit by a fuel-leaking plane at all, and yet pancaked down just like the towers. And by the way, a BBC reporter reported the bldg 7 collapse occurred -- past tense -- 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse happened. Oops."

This is truly the deciding argument for me, how can anyone not believe a conspiracy was afoot that day when the BBC got their signals crossed and reported a completely unlikely event before it actually happened?

JLK , says: November 18, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if the government is sending people to sow confusion on the collapse of these buildings it is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted as such.
Wally , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:46 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke Bingo!

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Jeff Stryker , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
@Patricus

Bush clearly intended to invade Iraq in 1990 and the Clinton presidency merely put this on hold for 9 years until Bush II was elected. The son was little more than a puppet for his father, his father's donors and his father's money. Bush II was merely an alcoholic bum. It was clearly his Dad's oil interests controlling him.

Johnny Walker Read , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
@Z-man The twin towers were were 110 stories high and were very strongly built, both were designed to withstand two strikes by Boeing 707′s. The biggest hole in your "collapse" theory is the lack of a debris pile. With the collapse of a building that high the debris pile should have been somewhere around 14 stories high. The debris pile was virtually missing. Have a look at the linked photo and tell me where the debris piles are. This photo was taken before any debris could have been removed as Building 7 is still standing.
anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
@James Speaks " and probably 7."

I'm no expert on your technical issues, either.

But I have a keen nose for discomfort masked with dissembling.

And the way that WTC 7 is so strenuously avoided and brushed aside by the Establishment, and even by many commenters here, stinks.

Ernesto Che , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@L. Ross @L. Ross: so you believe that a bunch of angry fundamentalists managed to outsmart all 17 US intelligence agencies and those of NATO and Israel, the National Security Council, the Transportation Safety Administration, Air Traffic Control, and Dick Cheney, hijacked four US airliners on one morning, brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers, destroyed that part of the Pentagon where research was underway into the missing $2.3 trillion, and caused the morons in Washington to blame Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia?

If so, you urgently need to educate yourself. If not, tell us why it was not a controlled demolition.

Bill Jones , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
@BB753 One more time.

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, ( This well appointed Suite http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm according to the London Times): nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes. And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip.

Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically -- through their own mass -- at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI

Meanwhile down in Washington

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building

all without a single shot being fired . or ruining the nicely mowed lawn and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video

Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana

Further south in Florida

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class full of primary school children shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger

In New York

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports

And If you don't believe this, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Agent76 , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:36 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read Sep 11, 2013 9/11 In A Nutshell

James Corbett presents this 5 minute parody of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11

September 11, 2013 Twelve Years of War, Lies and Deception

Twelve years after the 9/11 attacks, no credible independent investigation has been done to find out what really happened on that day and who was responsible.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-twelve-years-of-war-lies-and-deception/5349347

pioneer , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@72 Paul2

I am amazed that there seem still to be people who believe the official 9/11 propaganda bull*.

They don't believe the Gospel According To NIST. And I find it hard to believe you believe they believe it ** .

'They' are shills & operators. The 911 myth must be defended at all costs – the empire insists. For the one's who might genuinely believe, no need to waste time answering them as they're too stupid to matter.

** Calling Donald Rumsfeld.

anarchyst , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:12 pm GMT
@Simply Simon "Every large controlled demolition I witnessed shows massive explosions at ground level." Not true
Internal pillars can be taken out without showing any evidence of demolition from the outside of a building.
Every large controlled demolition that I have witnessed did not show "massive explosions" at ground level, but rather momentary flashes of light, with the building then collapsing into its own footprint.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
@Agent76 Thanks Agent 76. That video is actually amazingly funny -- and, partly because it's so funny, it packs a devastating punch. Seeing all the loose ends and nonsensical inconsistencies bundled together and delivered in fast-forward mode is hugely convincing.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@Z-man Your Quote
Two WTC went down first even though it was hit second because the plane hit lower and at an angle with more damage to more floors and more mass above to accelerate the collapse.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Congratulation.
You hit the bulls eye of the shit.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Watch the collapse again.
In both cases collapse started with the uppermost floor falling on the floor below.
And so because second tower was hit close to hour later and the position of the impact was several stories lower, the heat influence on the uppermost connection of trusses was considerably lower than in first hit tower.
Simple thermodynamics will confirm it to you.
..
When you will watch the collapse of first building (second hit)
You will notice the part of the building was tilting, before cascading begin.
That contradicts laws of physics.
..It was controlled demolition with exploding charges at trusses connections.
There should not be any doubt about it.

[Nov 19, 2018] Did Britain initiate both world wars?

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Wally , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:38 pm GMT

@Tulip So then, you do not have proof that the Germans killed those which they are said to have killed.
But hey, you do have the almighty name calling. I suggest giving Zionist TeeVee a rest.

As for German aggression, you're wrong on that too.
Sorry to keep posting the same rebuttals below, Ron. But as you see, we get the same ignorant claims.
facts:
- USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet the 'Allies' did nothing.
- Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the 'Allies' did nothing.
- The "neutral" US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany's declaration of war on the US.
- Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
- France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
- France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch "neutrality" with impunity by flying aircraft over the lowlands.
- It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.
Did Britain initiate both world wars? : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10458
Responsibility for WW2 : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
Introduction to HITLER'S WAR: http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/
Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain, Britain: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
http://www.codoh.com

jilles dykstra , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Tulip Hitler Germany conquered Poland in a few weeks, snatched Norway from under Churchill's nose, and beat France in three weeks.
About Churchill's stupidity in military matters: Gallipoli, and see what the commander of the British army thought about him:
Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, 'TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940′, New York, 1963
Hitler never wanted war:
A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
German economy:
from 1933 until 1936 unemployment was reduced from six to one million.
FDR's New Deal did hardly reduce USA unemployment.
Hitler's big mistake was to underestimate the power of international jewry:
Jean-Noël Jeanneney, 'Francois de Wendel en République, L'Argent et le Pouvoir 1914-1940, Paris 1976
Ludendorff already understood quite well that the allies wanted to destroy Germany
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
And see
Patrick J. Buchanan, 'Churchill, Hitler and "The unnecessary war", How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world', New York, 2008

[Nov 18, 2018] A>ll, empires are ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and peoples under permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British, Soviets, Chinese, etc. None of this is new information to anyone. If it is, you are retarded for just now coming to these conclusions. You should have understood all of this by your early twenties. ..."
"... Generally speaking, political reform follows cultural and economic change – not vice versa ..."
"... It would seem in the Soviet Union cultural and economic also followed political reform. One could sustain the same regarding Peronist Argentina until the early 1950s, the German Empire in 1871 which created the framework for profound and vast cultural and economic change, Italy since 1861, and so on. Thus, I am not so sure about the validity of the historical "law" you have tentatively formulated. ..."
"... Every state must have its peoples, in one way or another, support its geopolitical operations. In democracies, this comes down to applying psychological pressures so that the citizenry votes for the desired programs. ..."
"... Support can be achieved even in the face of strong initial opposition, such as WWI and the Iraq war. As Saker mentions, the support can be eroded when a war drags on too long without victory, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan. ..."
Nov 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

peterAUS , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT

@Hans Vogel You are probably onto something here. Especially with:

all, empires are ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and peoples under permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence.

If he wants to preserve his authority, he is compelled to use these techniques, which makes him, in a sense also the victim of the system he represents.

Not doing so would entail the collapse of the imperial system.

Fhilaerene , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:48 pm GMT
This is like something an undergraduate would write. It's like taking history and running it through an "all I needed to know I learned in kindergarten" filter.

The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British, Soviets, Chinese, etc. None of this is new information to anyone. If it is, you are retarded for just now coming to these conclusions. You should have understood all of this by your early twenties.

We thank the veterans because, at an instinctual level; they are the warriors of our tribe. Guilt over expansion isn't sincere; we know that Russians have and would eagerly engage in the same behavior, were they as powerful. "The weak must do what they must."

I read his stupid justification for living in our country. We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs. It is not, and never will be, their call. The author is clearly a Russian nationalist, which is a great thing, but that belongs in Russia.

American nationalism alone should exist here. The entire problem is that there are so many paper Americans here that our country has become corrupted beyond its original purpose; even before WWII, (((Americans))) had power, which is the reason for our poor actions against Japan. I've long supported dismantling the empire, but only because it is impoverishing our people, and we need those troops here to eject the millions of invaders, and guard the border. The empire is also a tool for (((you know who))).

Finally, a foreigner criticizing the U.S. military, while living in the U.S.A., is like going into your neighbor's home and accusing him of being an alcoholic. He may very well be, but it's not your place to say so. Once you cross over our border, any allegiance to a foreign power needs to end. Even if we make one of those Matryoshka dolls of your mother being plowed by one of our negroes, you better keep quiet. Because in truth, you are not wanted here. There is no benefit to me for Russians to be here.

Heritage Americans understand that these veterans are our hoplites, regardless of the wars they have fought in. If you don't have that national bond, it's time to admit it, pack up, and go back to a nation that you can identify with. One where you don't feel the urge to talk trash about the most brilliant saints of the Church. Yes Catholicism is lost, and the pope a hopeless cuck, but unlike the author, I'm not Russian. Converting to Russian Orthodoxy, even inside the U.S., is a process rife with hostility.
They have to go back. If you value Peter the Great more than Thomas Jefferson, great, but you have to go back.

peterAUS , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:03 pm GMT
@Edwin Vieira

The important questions–which (one is tempted to say "of course") he does not raise, let alone attempt to answer–are: (i) how did this sorry state of affairs come about; and (ii) what is to be done to correct the situation?

Ah, you see .that's not Saker's job. One of posters here already said what it is. Scroll up and you'll find it with ease.

And, those are definitely THE QUESTIONS. The second more important than the first.
Any ideas of yours?

Probably related to

.what failures or refusals on the part of the American people to enforce what provisions of their own Constitution have led to this pass?

I guess. I believe it has something to do with what happened to Rome once upon a time. Or any such entity.

Even if we simply focus on military: comparing militia from The American Revolutionary War with early Roman military and current US military with legions of, say, Augustus. Complex topics, of course.

And, there IS one aditional element too Saker types will never touch: is there a need for a World Policeman? I think there is (human nature, nukes and such). The catch is, of course, who 's going to be that one. Or better, who is going to control the cop. Even better, who and how, is going to control the controllers. Sounds complicated so irrelevant for most posters here. Better to focus on "bad Anglos" or "terrible Joos". Or whatever.

Saker's angle, and the resident "Team Russia" of course is, no need for World Policeman. They'd like three equal cops policing their own parts of the world. Saker cop "managing" that region from Vladivostok to, say .current German/Austrian/Italian/Greek border.
Chinese even "better": area up and including Tasmania and Stuart Island.
Hehe not that they'll ever admit that.

Fhilaerene , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT
If your country is weak, the credibility of your criticisms is comporomised. Of course, you don't accept the U.S. military. However, you have zero authority to employ the Alinskyite tactic of "hold them to their own ideals."

This is why the only foreigners besides tourists and students, who should be allowed here, are those who benefit Heritage Americans.

Russia is most definitely the "good guy" overall. I've been saying that for years, but we criticize the Neocons and even more influential (((neocons))), not our own soldiers. It doesn't matter if they've murdered entire towns overseas, not to most people. This is indisputably true for every country on Earth.

Soldiers rescue you when you're in a giant fish bowl that has been hit by a cat. 5 hurricane, or when a tornado levels your town. They protect you from invasion under normative circumstances; the current circumstances, of the military and government standing by while millions of third world invaders flood our land, isn't a typical one, and even then, it is only made possible by (((propagandists)))

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@wholy1 Lots of people escaped to Canada, for example rather than serve the empire. Would you rather murder people in Vietnam for the corrupt U.S. "government" (or be killed by someone defending their country from invaders), or go to Canada? I would've chosen Canada.
The Scalpel , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 6:50 pm GMT
@Fhilaerene "We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs."

You are a fool. I think you might be a good individualist though. At least you have a sense of self. Quit trying to speak for "Americans" (Who left you in charge of defining who is "American"?)and instead, speak for yourself. It would sound much less stupid.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 7:20 pm GMT
It's true that many join the military for benefits. This is esp true of Negroes and Browns.

But many whites join because they like the culture of Brotherhood. And these types tend to be patriotic and gung-ho. Of course, they are often clueless about how their patriotic feelings are being manipulated by globalists.

It'd be nice to have a law that says that while all men must fight to defend the US from invasion, all overseas ventures must be voted on by men in the military.

peterAUS , says: November 17, 2018 at 8:13 pm GMT
@Fhilaerene Good post. Just a touch harsh, perhaps, in a place or two.
Den Lille Abe , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:28 am GMT
In the US the military is deified, in other saner countries it is at best respected and supported and in some countries it is feared and avoided.

The US is a country, that has been at war for most of its life. I believe only a mere 25 years of not waging or participating in a war. Hence its reverence for the military. And in wars a lot of money can be made, lets not forget that

Den Lille Abe , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:10 am GMT
@Fhilaerene Quote from senseless comment:

"We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs."

No what we need is a friggen law that imposes death penalty on any US citizen ever leaving the US. The US is the main culprit of the misery and despair throughout the world, especially the ME too. Come to think of it, we should have for Israel citizens too.

Den Lille Abe , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:14 am GMT
@Harold Smith Indeed! Seem to me you must have read Kafka. Else we use the one below. Someone said something like : We change reality faster than you perceive reality has changed.
Curmudgeon , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:31 am GMT
@mijj As long as you understand that the Mafia is not an Italian construct, that would be correct.
chris , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:33 am GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Even a war fought for the openly crass reason of protecting one's own economic interests is hardly a uniquely evil event. It may be a deplorable fact of life, but you have to ask yourself: What else did you think was going to happen? Are the powerful of the world going to just sit by and watch their fortunes be destroyed?

Is the mob just going to sit by and watch as someone decides not to pay their protection money ? "what else did you think was going to happen?" Of course they're going to place a horse's head on their door step and if that doesn't work they'll put two bullet holes in his eye sockets.
ID, don't forget to thank your mafia soldier for his service on Veteran's day! (Oh, and don't forget to leave that protection money in the bucket behind the door like we talked about.)

Curmudgeon , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:36 am GMT
@Anon

how can anyone not believe a conspiracy was afoot that day

A conspiracy is two or more people working together to commit a criminal act. The official narrative of 9-11 is a conspiracy theory. Not a credible one, but conspiracy theory none the less.

Charles Martel , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:36 am GMT
What a snarky article by a weenie who lacked the cajones to serve.

When I joined the military in the mid-70′s, it wasn't for the benefits or the money; neither was particularly attractive, and with a lottery number north of 250, I wasn't at risk of being drafted. I joined for three reasons–first, my dad had served in WWII in the infantry, so there was a bit of family history; second, because I hated Marxism and the Commies who threatened to bury us; and third, because I considered it my civic duty to serve. So, I found myself in in a nuclear ordnance unit in Europe, helping keep several hundred nukes at the ready to fly in an easterly direction to kill Commies if necessary. Of course, the whole idea wasn't ever to vaporize eastern Europe, rather, it was to deter the Russians and their allies from attacking western Europe. Mission accomplished.

As was the case with NATO in the 70′s, the primary mission of the military isn't to fight wars; rather, it's to deter others from starting a war in the first place. As was the case with the Commies 40 years ago, if we didn't have a strong deterrent force (and the demonstrated will to use it) there are plenty of Mohammedans, Chinese and others who would dearly love to subdue us. And blowhards like Saker would be out of business, probably in a concentration camp somewhere, or dead. Unless, that is, they became collaborators.

I do agree, however, on one thing: I didn't and don't need any Thank-you's for my service. I don't expect thanks for paying my income tax or driving on the right side of the road; those are civic duties. And to me, service in the military is a civic duty as well for able-bodied males. After I got out of the Army, all I ever wanted a modicum of respect for having performed my civid duty–not to be derided and called a fool or a fascist for having served. But a civilian again and a student in the late '70s, that's all I heard from my smartypants lib classmates. It wasn't until 9/11, when people perceived (rightly or wrongly) that their pansy butts were at risk unless somebody was willing to fight or deter bad guys, that people started saying "Thank you for your service."

Saker, instead of calling people who served fools and fascists, calls us money-grubbing mercenaries. It would be annoying coming from anybody other than a guy who believes that 9/11 was some kind of CIA plot. My cat is smarter than that. And even Saker is smarter than to spout his malarky to a veteran's face.

Simon in London , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:14 am GMT
Yes the American ruling class are sanctimonious hypocrites. Yes the US wages wars of aggression by the Nuremberg standard the US invented.

If Russia ran the world things would be different, but I doubt they would be better.

jilles dykstra , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:31 am GMT
" since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). " Since FDR is his 1940 election promised not to 'send USA boys overseas unless the USA was attacked'.

On the Sunday of the attack the America First Committee understood quite well, as Lindbergh writes, he got a phone call: 'he (FDR) got us into the (European) war through the back door'. Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh', New York, 1970

Since the end of 1939 the USA navy was waging war in the Atlantic against Germany, but Hitler had given strict orders that his navy and airforce should not give FDR a pretext for war. Not quite sure, but I think Patrick Beesly, 'Very special intelligence', 1977 Londen describes the very close cooperation in the Atlantic between GB, navy and airforce, and FDR's navy and airforce, beginning at the end of 1939.

There was one incident between a German submarine and a USA navy vessel that nearly was serious enough for FDR to declare war. Few people, including myself until recently, know about Hitler's attack on Russia, and Japanese war aims. Japan had promised Hitler to attack the USSR if Hitler had taken Moscow and was at the Volga, thus the desperate fight over Stalingrad.

Robert J.C. Butow, 'JAPAN'S Decision to Surrender', Stanford, 1954
F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, 'The case of Richard Sorge', New York, 1966

If indeed Japan would have attacked Russia, I doubt. In any case, Hitler was very pleased with Pearl Harbour, really a surprise to him, it seems. That FDR's provocation to Japan caused that Japan remained neutral towards the USSR until the beginning of 1945, the USSR annihition of the Kwantung Army, I wonder if Hitler ever realised this.

jilles dykstra , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:39 am GMT
@Fhilaerene " The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British, Soviets, Chinese, " It is quite different from what the British empire was. The perfidous Britons built their empire not just on naked force, but on diplomacy, cunning, deceit, blackmail, bribery, propaganda, etc., than the USA.

British people indeed were outraged when Gordon was killed at Khartoum. Far more outrage, is my impression, than USA people about the Vietnam defeat.

James Speaks , says: November 18, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@Simply Simon The Empire State Building has a steel frame designed using moment distribution. It was being designed as it was being built. Steel and labor were cheap during the Great Depression. Thus, the building could be overdesigned, and it was.
Herald , says: November 18, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
@Fhilaerene "It doesn't matter if they've murdered entire towns overseas, not to most people." It might well have mattered to those who have been murdered and it should it should matter to the rest of us. Soldiers and their political masters should not get a free pass for wanton murder.
Pheasant , says: November 18, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein 'Most soldiers all throughout history have been mercenaries' Standing armies were not generally a thing untill comparatively recently
mike k , says: November 18, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
Bravo Saker! All your points are undeniably true and very clearly stated. I salute your courage in publishing these truths in the face of the world's greatest disinformation and propaganda machine – the US government.

The military is the huge death squad of the evil US Empire. These are the oligarch's tools for murder and pillage around the world. The US Military is the most shameful group in the world today, composed of those willing to kill their brothers and sisters for money.

anonymous [397] Disclaimer , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:03 pm GMT
Saker, the very nature of life itself is based on war and has always been based on war. Problem?

We're chemical machines, that have been built over 4 billion years, and we've been tested in what can be called quite accurately a 'Gladiator War'; where the machines went into the battle and if you won, your DNA replicated, and that's all it was was a war.

BB753 , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
@Z-man "The two planes were two large armored napalm tanks"

Except that planes aren't built like tanks or else they wouldn't lift off the ground. And their engines don't run on napalm.
There's no way for a large plane traveling at low speed to go right through a building. It would have crashed to pieces and plummeted to the ground where it would have exploded and burned down.

WJ , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT
@The Alarmist I joined to shoot all sorts of weaponry, to use explosive, to rappel out of helicopters, to call in close air support, etc. All great, fun stuff. Unfortunately , mixed in with that, was a lot of 3 am spit shining shoes and ironing ponchos for a junk on the bunk inspection at 0800.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Realist In fact there has NEVER been any occasion since the War of 1812 when members of the US armed forces had to fight to protect their "homeland" – which is impressive when you remember that the USA has been at war for 222 out of 239 years since 1776.

As for the War of 1812, while it is true that the British invaded the USA and burned some of Washington, the Americans were responsible for the outbreak of war. President James Madison declared war on Great Britain, when negotiations were still possible. At the time, Britain was at war with the empire of Napoleon so the US declaration of war must have seemed to the British a treacherous stab in the back.

Aardvark , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
@James Speaks I suppose the proximity of the jets cause WTC7 to experience slenderness too. Or was it that the BBC announcing WTC's demise 20 minutes before it actually happened was caused by "kl/r"?